Hi John,

We'll get confirmation from Steve as to the correct approach, but here's how I ended up thinking about mines that use sequential instructions, which is a little bit different than how I would handle it if none of the mines have instructions that involve sequencing.

First, determine the order of the ships. Even if all the ships are moving together in a stack, one of them has to be "first," one of them "second," etc. The rule in M2.47 says that ties are to be resolved by a die roll or coin toss (meaning that two ships cannot both be "second").

Once you have the order of the ships, it becomes pretty easy to match the ship with the mine(s) that target that step in the sequence, e.g., matching the second ship in the column to the mine(s) that is/are triggered by the second ship. Then, for those ships matched to more than one mine, roll a die to determine which of those mines it triggered.

Using this approach, your example "C" would be correct for a situation where mines 1 and 2 are triggered by the first ship, mines 3 and 4 are triggered by the second, and mines 5 and 6 by the third. Then, for each of the three pairs of mines, you would roll a die to determine which one of the two mines within that pair exploded.

Jay

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, February 01, 2021 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Clarification of my last paragraph:

Using this approach, your example "C" would be correct for a situation where mines 1 and 2 are programmed to be triggered by the first ship, mines 3 and 4 are programmed to be triggered by the second, and mines 5 and 6 by the third. Then, for each of the three pairs of mines, you would roll a die to determine which one of the two mines within that pair exploded.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, February 02, 2021 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Cool, I hope we are closer to understanding mines!

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Wednesday, February 03, 2021 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Pretty much as the paired idea states. If two mines are set to blow, Though why you would use that seems...problematic to me then yes...1 of the two would blow and you would roll to see which with the first set.

But...here is the issue now. Say mine two blew up. Cool. But now mine 1 is still waiting to be triggered and its requirements are met. So here comes ship 2. Now mine one could blow...and because a ship entered, the skip count is now satisfied for mines 3 and 4. So all 3 mines would be rolled for since they all have satisfied their requirements.

So one of them blows. Now the third ship enters. And every remaining mine could blow as well as any ship that enters from now on.

So the realistic answer using skip counting would be to set all mines to the size class or all size classes. First mine. No skip. 2nd skip 1. 3rd skip 2, 4th skip 3, 5th skip 4 and 6th skip 5.

This way one mine is activated and blows for every ship that enters with no rolling required at all since as each ship enters and blows the next one in the order is waiting for the next ship to enter.

The problem is normally people do not use skip counts. So every mine potentially can activate. And every mine is there activating at the same instant if it activates. So all ships roll once to see which mine will be activated. Anywhere from 1 to 6 mines would blow up if you had 6 ships depending on if each ship rolled the same or different mine numbers. 1,2,2,2,4,6 would mean 4 mines blew up as an example. Leaving behind mines 3 and 5 ready for the next thing to enter.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 11:03 am: Edit

Hi Charles,

Using your example (mine 2 blows up), from my point of view, ship 2 (the second pass) would not set off mine 1 (set for first pass). However, one of mines set for second pass (3 or 4) will blow up as ship 2 meets the second pass criteria. Ibid for ship 3 and mines 5 and 6.

(My answer is unofficial of course, but that is the way I see things happening.)

By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 12:10 pm: Edit

A problem I am seeing is that if this is all happening in the same impulse you have to remember the Sequence of Play. During step 6A2, the ships are set in order of precedence, then move and determine mine detections. Then in 6A3 the explosion(s) are resolved.

In the paired mines example, ship 1 rolls between mines 1 and 2; ship 2 rolls between mines 1, 2, 3 and 4; and ship 3 rolls between all mines. [See second to last paragraph of the example in (M2.47)]

This is also the problem in the sequenced mines. Ship 1 triggers mine 1, Ship 2 rolls between mines 1 & 2, Ship 3 rolls between mines 1, 2 & 3, and so on.

It is only after step 6A3 that the exploded mines are removed from play.

Also remember that if a second movement of the ships could trigger the same mines then you would roll the same way for the remaining mines but the target counts do not increase. (M2.151)

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 01:30 pm: Edit

I have a question that may solve the confusion.

In the second to last paragraph of M2.47, it says that "one mine is set to accept the first target, another mine to accept the second, the third mine to accept the third, and so forth."

I had read that to mean that the first mine would detonate on the first target (acceptable ship that entered its detection range) and ONLY the first target. Similarly, the second mine would accept the second target and ONLY the second target, etc. Thus, in my interpretation of the example, there was a clean 1:1 line up between the six mines and the six ships, with each ship able to trigger one, and only one, mine.

However, after thinking about Kenneth's comments, it occurred to me that another interpretation is possible. Accepting the first target might mean that the mine will accept the first ship but also any subsequent target. Similarly, accepting the second target might mean that the mine will accept the second target, but also any subsequent target, etc.

If the latter interpretation is correct, then in the example in M2.47, the first ship in the column can only trigger the first mine. The second ship in the column can trigger either mine 1 or mine 2, the third ship can trigger mines 1, 2 and 3, etc.

Similarly, if the latter interpretation is correct, then Kenneth is also correct as to which mines might trigger in my paired mines example.

Which of the two interpretations is correct?

The fact that parenthetical in the second to last paragraph in M2.47 says that Unit #3 might trigger mines 1, 2 or 3 suggests the latter interpretation is correct, and that I had originally misunderstood the example.

Jay

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I have not forgotten this mine issue, I just need to pick a time when SVC can discuss it, and getting counters done is not the right time (SVC is buried in counter editing and does not need to be disturbed, sorry).

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Not a problem. Not urgent at all.

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Thanks Steve Petrik. Sooner or later this could be a very important issue at certain times.

For now...I am using the old idea, of 6 mines...6 ships...every ship rolls to see which mine saw it.

Therefore from 1 to 6 mines will blow up depending on how many saw which ships.

But...the idea of skip count as a way to detonate multiple mines does seem valid. Especially with the idea that is used for determining which shield is hit....the number one...or number 4...when you need to see which ships were in front and which behind to determine the shield that got struck. So if ships are considered to be in a line. As that rule says. Then...1 entered first...then another...so forth so on....so skip count could or would apply.

At least that is as of now how I see it as working. But still...for now. Using the standard mine activation way.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 03:33 pm: Edit

The main advantage I see with skip counts is that it avoids/reduces the possibility that multiple ships will trigger the same mine. If I put three t-bombs in front of a stack of oncoming ships, I would obviously prefer to have all three explode. Having all the ships trigger the same t-bomb would be very disappointing.

Incidentally, in case anyone was wondering, here's the percentage likelihood for the various possibilities in a six mines/six ships situation where every mine will accept any ship (thus each ship must roll to see which of the six mines it triggers).

The most likely outcome is four mines being triggered: a 50% chance.

Three mines being triggered and five mines being triggered both came in at 23% likelihood.

Two mines being triggered and six mines being triggered were both less than 2%.

All six ships triggering the same mine is almost impossible: a less than 0.01% chance.

So even without sequencing, the majority of the mines will probably trigger.

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 09:02 pm: Edit

True and usually...the majority always triggers. When it is an odd number anyway. And more than 2.

By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 08:46 am: Edit

This may have come about because of referring to it as a skip count when the rules call it a delay count. Once active, it is always active.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 08:53 am: Edit

As long as we are discussing mines...

Say 6 ships (same hex) enter the detection range of 6 captor mines (same hex). This time, the mines have to decide what target to attack! They do not blow up after all. (We will tackle what happens after they re-arm their weapons later.)

What will happen for each of our three examples?

A. 6 captor mines have the same detection criteria.

B. 6 captor mines have 6 different detection criteria.

C. captor mines 1, 2 same criteria, captor mines 3, 4 different criteria, captor mines 5, 6 different criteria.

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Change of topic lol.

Ok...running into this in a campaign. Ships get into battle in a system. And lose assorted fighters. After the battle...the ships explore the system and find a NPE race there that attacks them.

Now...under replacement shuttles in G3 it says as an example, that the Horseman has 2 replacement shuttles.

So...number one...there is also the rule which says it takes 100 turns to bring up and activate a single replacement shuttle. That's thought 1. So since there is no delay, the other fleet leaves and you now explore system seems like replacements are not possible and if so...just 1?

So now on to thought 2. The Horseman decides to bring up amorphous shuttle 1 and 2....assuming he can replace them. This is both of his spare shuttles. They transform before the crews eyes from Admins to Fighters. And suddenly they are Stingers. Now...taking this a step further. He has Stinger 1Gs and Stinger Hs on the ship. (Just for clarity on what a replacement shuttle could become.) He lost 3 stinger 1Gs and a stinger 1 H. And again...the magic amorphous shuttle transfigures into a Stinger 1G and a Stinger 1 H

Is this how replacement shuttles work? Where you have magic storage that as you get things destroyed you get to pick and choose what you had stored? Or is there something that says these are Admin not fighters? Or how does this work?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Hmmm, captors have a range of six when automatic (15 hexes if command-controlled, but IIRC it also uses a seeking weapon slot). Question while the ships has an order of entry, do the captors for firing (especially useful when duplicates detect together)??

Charles - that 100 turns is the fact that the replacements are still in their shipping crates (even if some parts may have been broken out to cover some quick repair work). As for the Hydran Horseman, it has one spare shuttle and two spare fighters (G3), so no changing allowed (they're likely the standard ST2 and not a specialty fighter like the StH or StG).

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 06:36 pm: Edit

So what the ship normally carries would be the spares? But if the ship carries both types? Would it be one of each? Or just 2 of the more standard type lol?

Its not critical to anything. Just wondering.

As for the time required...well that will be up to the person running the campaign as to how they rule. But to me it would be a no shuttle replacement when you are dealing with it takes a whole turn to get somewhere(Turn being half a year.) and then you fight and the turn is over. Except in this case...you fight then have a second fight prior to much of anything else happening.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Charles Carroll:

At the bottom of the Hydran Master Starship Chart (Annex #3) is a Notes section that includes:

"Spare Fighters: Most Hydran carriers, dreadnoughts, and command ships operated mixed fighter groups of superiority and assault (hellbore armed) fighters. On such ships every fourth spare fighter can be a hellbore fighter, i.e., if the ship has three spare fighters, none can be hellbore fighters, if the ship has four spare fighters AND it normally operates hellbore fighters, one of the spare fighters can be a hellbore fighter."

The Horseman has "1-2: spare shuttles," so it has one (1) admin shuttle and two (2) Stinger-1Gs in your example. And under (J4.8931) it can never have the facilities to rearm a hellbore armed fighter, so hellbore armed fighters would never be assigned to it. Unless there was no other choice (surviving hellbore fighter when its ship went down is recovered by a ship that does not normally operate hellbore fighters) and its helllbore in such a case could not be rearmed by the ship. It would basically operate as an expensive Stinger-F with one chaff pack (if chaff were available) and toting around an empty hellbore.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 05:03 pm: Edit

As to breaking shuttles out of storage.

Ru;e (J1.422) does say 100 turns to bring "a stored shuttle to the bay and prepare it for use," but the only limiting factor is the number of stored shuttles and the number of open bay spaces. There is no rule saying you can only ready one spare shuttle, period.

Rule (U1.22) says the ship RECEIVES one replacement shuttle after the scenario and "if needed can draw other shuttles out of storage."

Basically your campaign has to define time. Sure, the enemy may have only just left, but your fleet (or ship) might have loitered at the edge of the system conducting (D9.4) repairs before moving into the system. You might have had a resupply tug drop off various things you used in the battle So accessing (U1.22) (T-bombs, drones, fighters, shuttles, wingnuts, bolts, spare cocoa beverage powder) and a transport bring up replacement crew.

Depends on your campaign rules how much time passes between the end of one battle and your ships start exploring the system. Could be right away, could be after (D9.4) repairs. Could be after you assemble all the senior staff to discuss things.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 05:07 pm: Edit

As to breaking shuttles out of storage.

Ru;e (J1.422) does say 100 turns to bring "a stored shuttle to the bay and prepare it for use," but the only limiting factor is the number of stored shuttles and the number of open bay spaces. There is no rule saying you can only ready one spare shuttle, period.

Rule (U1.22) says the ship RECEIVES one replacement shuttle after the scenario and "if needed can draw other shuttles out of storage."

Basically your campaign has to define time. Sure, the enemy may have only just left, but your fleet (or ship) might have loitered at the edge of the systems conducting (D9.4) repairs before moving into the system You might have had a resupply tug drop off various things you used in the battle T-bombs, drones, fighters, shuttles, wingnuts, bolts, spare cocoa beverage powder) and a transport bring up replacement crew.

Depends on your campaign rules how much time passes between the end of one battle and your ships start exploring the system. Could be right away,could be after (D9.4) repairs. Could be after you assemble all the senior staff to discuss things.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, February 07, 2021 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Thus far, all published deck plans depict spare shuttles as fully intact, not crated up nor obviously with the sides / roof folded into an collapsed configuration. One might presume that the fuel tanks are empty, however.

In my head, I see it as it that takes 100-turns to move it from its hangar, fuel it up, fill the air tanks, load up basic supplies and survival equipment, do a complete systems check and longer-than-normal pre-flight inspection.


Garth L. Getgen

By Peter DiMitri (Pdimitri) on Monday, February 08, 2021 - 08:26 am: Edit

Can a freighter buy boarding parties as Commander's Options?

All the references say "extra" boarding parties may be purchased, but small freighters and large freighters don't have any, so they couldn't have extra.

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Monday, February 08, 2021 - 12:09 pm: Edit

I have a question regarding extending a cloak from one ship to cover another docked unit with it.

(C13.9492) specifies that the cost to operate the cloak is the sum of the cloak cost of both units and if the other unit does not have a cloak, use Annex 7H.

What is the cost for units that are not listed on 7H: ie, F-S, F-L, ComPlat, SAMS, Pods, etc?

Which value is good in those cases?

Marcel

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 08, 2021 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Peter DiMitri:

SVC has said that he intends to ban the purchase of additional boarding parties by civilian units such as freighters.

Marcel Trahan:

Somehow we have come this far and this question does not seem to have come up. So I do not have a ready answer despite freighters having been in the game since almost day one.

I have no ready answer and would need time to develop one.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, February 08, 2021 - 02:21 pm: Edit

So, freighters can't hire mercenaries to protect high-value cargo?? Pity.


Garth L. Getgen