Archive through January 06, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through January 06, 2021
Greg....you are looking at the outdated rule which is the only place that mentions limit of one scout. And maybe you did not notice. But the rule you showed...are both the same rule number.
So...now...in the 50th Edition and in the Captains Advanced Mission book...it says the second version. My outdated copy, in paperback. Says the first version.
So since the only place in all the rules dealing with number of scouts was in the one free scout area. And has now in all recent books been changed to only deal with the free scout slot. Where does any rule say we can have but one scout normally? And then add a second free scout?
I am not in anyway saying having a 10 ship fleet with a free scout making 11 and in the fleet are 6 scouts is a good idea. I am just saying there is no rule stating the number of scouts allowed. Like BCH. 1 per Fleet. Mauler. 1 Per fleet. Drone Bombardment. 3 per fleet max. PFT 1 per fleet. Scouts....nada.
So, I just want to see a rule that actually says 1 Scout per Fleet normally but can add another free. I am not trying to be a pain here. I just see nothing saying something that everyone tells me is in there. I feel it was. Now it is not. Show me the Rule in the 50th Edition. Which should be the latest update.
A question about using hidden movement for cloaked ships. Assume a ship is cloaked, and no opposing ships have a lock-on to it. To keep it simple, assume other factors remain constant but that the range is closing.
At the start of the turn, the range was great enough that a lock-on was impossible. However, the cloaked ship has just changed range bands (e.g., the range changed from the 5-10 band to the 1-4 band), and a roll is required as there is now a 1 in 6 chance of obtaining a lock-on. However, the mere fact that a roll is now required provides important information to the hunting ship: that the range has closed.
Is this considered part of the limited information available on hidden cloaked ships (similar to what happens impulse #8 and #24) so that a roll should occur only when meaningful? Or should the hunting ship roll every impulse so that the hunter doesn't know if the die roll is "real" or meaningless (similar to how meaningless rolls for damage can occur in G13.617)?
I don't see anything in the rules that says one way or the other. Is it up to the players to decide which they prefer?
John H. Williams:
Using hidden cloaking does not change the chance of gaining a lock on. You may as well ask if the ship were to increase, or decrease, its speed can it keep that information from the searching ship or ships.
In short, if you moved closer the searching ship gets the modifier and has a chance at gaining a lock on in normal hidden cloaking rules he must be told of that improvement in the equation.
However, if you are playing with a third party as a judge you could agree to let him handle such things, rolling a die hidden from both players (you do not want the cloaked ship to KNOW the hunting ship has gained the lock on) an informing players of the appropriate information.
But if there are only two players (or two sides) the hunting side has to be told that "conditions have improved" and a die can be rolled to gain a lock on, and he has to be told that die roll is a result of distance, not speed, or if the conditions have improved because the cloaked ship has accelerated (or gotten worse because the cloaked ship has slowed). Or etc. (might have crossed the boundary and accelerated, or crossed the boundary and slowed, or etc.).
Thanks for the clarification.
How detailed should the disclosure be? Continuing the example that range changes triggered the die roll, does the Romulan state generally that the range closed to a more favorable band and that a die roll is now required, or does the Romulan disclose the specific change: that the range closed from the 5-10 band to the 1-4 band?
Fascinating! Using a third party because the cloaked ship does not see anything.
This has grave implications for the use of mines by both parties.
I've played in a few skittle games using hidden cloak. The cloaked ship(s) can see us move and react - but we cannot see them, bad for us.
Has anyone played with the "third party"? I would like to hear how the battle went.
John M. Williams:
You are going to tell him it improved because of the change of range. You are not going to tell him where in the appropriate shield are that happened. Under (G13.612) he knows your ship is somewhere in the 60* are of his #2 shield. But that at four hexes range can be and of five hexes. Other data feeds in:
Did both ships move on the impulse the cloaked ship entered the range bracket? Well, if both ships moved, the cloaked ship might actually be Range 3 instead of Range 4.
Is the cloaked ship near one of the dividing lines? If so, the cloaked ship might on the next move no longer be off that shield facing,, and if it is not Impulse #8 or #24 you do not have to tell him that it is no longer off his #2 shield facing.
If he gets the lock-on from the closer range, the cloaked ship will have a problem, especially if he is able to retain the lock-on,
John L. Stiff:
The third party is not used because the cloaked ship cannot see anything. It is used because he can make the die rolls and make additional dummy die rolls. The cloaked ship can see the movements of the uncloaked ship, but does not know if the uncloaked ship has a lock-on to him and his executing an attack run to close and fire weapons, or just incidentally turned and is closing the range on his precise position.
Well I'll be...
This means that the cloaked ship can see any transported T-bombs.
I would think that the third party would also be responsible for mines dropped out of the hatch. Based on what you said, the Romulan will know if the opponent moved into the detection range of his mine. But the other player will not know because he cannot see the cloaked ship. A third party is needed to make this determination. A cloaked ship does have a chance of setting off a mine.
I was such a third party. I had a hidden map (two 8x11 sheets of paper in plastic of the mine field) and plotted all ship movements through the mine field. The Orion player tried to infiltrate the mine field under cloak. I had him roll each time his ships moved even if they were not next to a mine.
The group had a discussion concerning captor mines. The issue was: could the captor mine fire phasers if the cloaked Orion was "exposed" by a small mine that exploded. (The Orion rolled the proverbial 1.) The range requirements were met for the captor mine. The group decided that yes, the captor mine would fire. Damage due to movement is resolved before the direct fire segment.
John Stiff:
If you are playing with mines being visible when dropped (a counter is placed on the map), then yes, the hidden cloaking ship can see them, just as any other ship can.
If you are playing that mines laid out the hatch are not put on the map, just their location (and other pertinent data) is recorded and no, not even the hidden cloaking ship can see them. You could very easily (and you should since only the third party will see the tracks (movement by hex) of the two sides give the information to the third party (in fact, you pretty much have to). But if you are not playing with hidden mines [Secret Placement (M2.6)], then the hidden cloaking ship KNOWS. Just as every other ship knows because the normal rule is that mines are not hidden.
As to the Captor Mine and the Orion, check the rules.
The relevant rules are:
(G13.555) A captor mine (M4.435) will not trigger against a cloaked ship since it cannot target it. A captor mine will gain a lock-on to a cloaked ship within its detection range if the cloak is voided (or dropped) and will then roll to retain that lock-on in the subsequent Lock-On Stage. A sensor mine will detect a cloaked ship (as any other mine would); it cannot order a captor mine to fire (unless that mine has a lock-on) but can order an explosive mine to detonate. See (M5.1121).
So, yes, the captor mine had a lock-on to the cloaked ship that was exposed by the explosion, but had to roll to retain the lock on before it could fire, and if it retained the lock on (and the cloaked ship met its firing instructions) could fire at that time.
(G13.556) Mines may be laid from mine racks or dropped from shuttle bays by a cloaked unit without voiding the cloak. The mine will NOT become active until the cloaked unit has met the requirements of (M2.34), and this is based on true range, not effective range.
John,
Drones can be the bane of a ship decloaking close to its target (e.g., within mauler range). If you haven't tried this already, it's a great way to get your opponent to think twice about launching drones, but it's hard to set up.
Have the other ships launch enough torpedoes to force emergency deceleration and a wild weasel. Before the stopped ship (or ideally a stack of ships) can resume movement, have a hidden cloaked ship drop an NSM in an adjacent hex (secret placement). Then start decloaking on the other side of the mine (out of blast range). Hopefully, they will launch drones at the uncloaking ship. Then, when the drones move, they trigger the mine: destroying the drones and damaging the ship(s). As as added bonus, your mauler now has a down shield to fire through.
Beautiful when it works, but it's hard to line everything up. However, one attempt will make your opponent think twice about targeting you with drones.
Jay
SP,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. Our group came to the consensus that the captor mine would fire on the impulse that the cloaked ship was exposed (just like a ship could do). Actually a ship did fire, and hit a different shield.
I did not attempt to roll to retain lock on as the phaser captor mine did it's thing and would have to wait until next turn before it could fire again.
It sounds like you are saying that the captor mine had to wait 1 impulse before it could fire. The Orion would of course be cloaked by then, making hitting the target much more difficult assuming a lock-on was retained. If this is so, then our group missed that... At least we were consistent.
JW
You are most evil.
That exact scenario is hard to pull off.
Many years ago, one player in our group was even more evil. He had command controlled Nuclear Space Mines embedded in the mine field surrounding the SB. He would wait until he could get a bunch of ships at once. The SB opened up with the P4's and a few ships nearby with disrupters. All went thru the down shield.
John L. Stiff:
NOTE: I wrote most of this before I went to check a rule, so it is wrong. See
(M4.46) DIRECT-FIRE SEQUENCE: Captor mines armed with direct-fire weapons fire immediately when triggered (not within the normal Sequence of Play). See (M5.112). When firing at a cloaked ship, they will fire immediately when triggered only if they have already achieved and retained a lock-on (M4.435). See also (M5.201).
I was thinking of the "commit to fire" sentence for seeking weapon captors:
(M4.48) SEEKING WEAPONS: Captor mines with seeking weapons do not launch them when they trigger. They commit to launch them at that point and actually launch them at the appropriate point of the Sequence of Play, i.e., the Seeking Weapons Stage (6B6). If the target is no longer available (destroyed, no lock-on, behind a planet, etc.), the mine will not launch its weapons. It will reset and look for a new target. If a captor bolts a plasma torpedo, it is resolved in the Mine Direct-fire Sequence (M4.46).
Which shows the danger of working entirely from fallible memory. My apologies. Below is the original reply I was assembling before I found my error:
I am not "saying," it is the rule.
You gained lock on to the cloaked Orion during Damage During Movement Stage (6A3).
You then have to roll to RETAIN lock on in the subsequent Lock-On Stage (6B3) of the same impulse,
which as it happens is BEFORE the Direct Fire Weapons Segment (6D) of the impulse.
From the last paragraph of the Example after (G13.3224): "The Gorn ship then proceeds to set a T-bomb next to the Romulan ship and detonate it with one of his own shuttles to produce the "flash cube" effect of (G13.552). He gains a lock-on but, due to the ECM state and the low Romulan speed, fails the die roll to retain it. He repeats the process on the next impulse and can continue to do so as long as he has T-bombs, a means to place them, and a means to detonate them. "
Note: The Gorn GAINED lock-on from the explosion, but before he could launch weapons (or fire weapons) he had to RETAIN the lock-on, all in the same impulse. Lock-on (6B3) is after movement (6A), but before seeing weapons are launched launched (6B6) and before direct fire weapons are fired (6D), or before transporters (6B7).
So your Captor mine gained a lock on when the mine exploded, but before it could aline its weapons to fire, it lost it.
SP
I am relieved.
As a retired senior person, I can attest to the fact that my memory is not what it was (and it wasn't good when I was younger).
You have given me an idea for a future game - a plasma captor mine bolting a torpedo!! Thanks.
John L. Stiff:
Legal, but if not controlled by a base, you are committed to only firing bolts. A large captor can only fire one (1) of its three weapons every turn. It can be set to bolt (in which case when triggered it will bolt, or launch, one plasma-F. A small captor can fire its one weapon every three turns, and can be set to fire it every time as a bolt, or launch it as a plasma-F.
I haven't found any rules covering a ship with only one working web generator trying to reinforce two webs. Even if the ship qualifies to reinforce both webs per (G10.212), it should be obvious that only one web may be reinforced at a time due to the single operable web generator. Even so, I'm asking the question for clarity.
Is a ship with only one working web generator limited to reinforcing only one web during a single impulse? Is there a minimum time delay when switching between the webs?
John Christiansen:
The only requirements are to have a working web generator to be in or adjacent to a hex. If you are between two webs, you can reinforce both, but you can only give four points of reinforcement energy. Whether you have two web generators, the limit is four points of energy, not four points per web generator. So you could add 1 point to one web and three to the other, or two points each on that impulse.
SPP, thanks. That's why I asked, for clarity.
In D15.87 Ground Combat Unit Summary.
1. What do the suffixes to the shuttles mean?
-P
-S
-Si
2. In Module J2, R1.F18, R1.F183, and R1.F193, it says Advanced GAS. GBS, and A-HAS have their ground combat offensive potential increased by 1.
Should the chart in D15.87 be updated with higher values for the Ground Combat Potential of the A-GAS, A-GBS, or A-HAS?
-P- Designates the shuttle as different from the early year (-Y) and advanced (A-) shuttles.
-S - Sublight shuttle
-Si Early sublight shuttle
I do not see any -P, -S, -Si suffixes in the D15.87 chart. (Module M 2007 edition)
The 2012 Captain Captain's Master Rulebook has a revised D15.87 chart.
So Early Sublight is more advanced than Sublight because those -Si shuttles have higher ground combat potential?
Good question, Tim. While I don't have the REAL answer and can't speak for ADB, Inc., I have a guess...
The "-S" sublight shuttle, I'm guessing, is meant for an as-of-yet unpublished (but VERY much intended) pure "Sub-Light" module for the game. Historically, I recall reading that the rules letter "Q" is set aside for the "Sublight SFB," and the earlier "Commander's Edition" had, in Volume II, as I recall, the pure Gorn Sub-Light Battleship; a vessel that was the basis for the Warp Refitted Battleship that we've all come to know and love.
Meanwhile, they did the Early Years series and, to differentiate the sublight shuttles for that time period (the earliest tactical warp, as opposed to NO tactical warp), they use the suffix "-Si" for the improved version of the older (NO tactical warp) sublight shuttles.
Again, though, I can't speak for our Hosts, so this is just the guess on the part of a regular knucklehead. 
Sublight Shuttles are used by the Romulans (mostly, they saw some use by the other empires when they were limited to non-tactical warp, but we have not directly published any ships, you can take an Warp Refitted Ship of most empires and strip off the warp engines and fit them with lasers and missile racks for a ROUGH idea of what that was like). Initially they are unarmed (S), but eventually (Y130) they picked up a Laser as found on sublight Fighters (Si, i.e., an improved sublight shuttle). Note that most Romulan Sublight Fighters also picked up an the Laser, an extra laser in the case of the G-L. But only the Romulans developed lasers for their sublight shuttles.
Question re DEFSAT lock on at start of a turn.
DEFSATs launches QWTs on imp 32.
Lock on is attained .
Next turn, retention lock on rolls again is done and ship is moving speed 6.
Lock on is successful.
Question now is can the ship now bump up its speed to 16 or does it have to maintain speed 6 for the entire turn to maintain lock on to the DEFSAT ?
Reason is Kzinti ship launches a bunch of drones on locked on DEFSAT before the speed change bump.
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
Frank Lemay:
The rule (M7.42) says: 'The speed of the ship can be no more than six or lock-on is lost immediately." That seems pretty definitive that if your ship moves faster than Speed 6 at any time you lose lock-on. Note that you could have been moving Speed 31 when the captor fired at you can gained a lock-on by the rules [(M7.41) "The speed of the ship and range to the captor mine have no effect."] which nominally lets you pop off a shot (direct fire) at a captor mine (or defense satellite) that launched a seeking weapon at you. but not a Defense Satellite if it only fired direct-fire weapons at you (unlike captor mines here, which fire immediately when triggered so you would get a shot at them).
SPP,
My understanding was to be at speed 6 at time of lock on roll attempt so if going faster than 6, do not bother for the roll attempt.
Thanks for clarifying !!
Cheers
Frank