Archive through December 02, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through December 02, 2021
Thank you Steve.
Is there a typo or two in you answer? leaving before #5 vs #6??? Please confirm/clarify.
>If the scenario says you have to exit by Turn #6 and provides no other data than you have to leave the mpbefore Turn #5.
Fred Werenich
Yes, you have to leave before turn #6, which means before the end of Turn $5.
Ok some new questions.
Bases seem to have a rule everyone I play with has missed. Mostly because we are not big on base fights. With that said. R1.1G1 says that all space based bases have unlimited use of DCR. So what ever the DC is, they can use this every turn to repair systems until/unless the drop below 50 % damage.
This rule appears to mean that like shields, between scenarios all internals could and should be repaired on these bases?
Second question dealing with non minelayers and bases. T bombs placed near a base. As in within 1 hex. T bombs are active. Base orbiting at speed 1 towards the t bomb. It is not moving at speed 0 because of orbit or is it? If it is moving at speed one and it decides to clear the mine. Rolls a 4 or less and has lock on. Can it fire direct fire weapons at the mine? Second if it cannot or prefers, it launches seeking weapons at the mine. Drone or SS. On launch the mine is not set off. Next impulse of movement the seeker enters the hex . Does it destroy the mine if it does more than 4 points before the mine goes off? Or does the mine kill it, assuming of course the mine was set for drones or SS?
Also how many lock on rolls do you get to try and lock a mine? Every imp?
And last sweeping question. Does the drone/SS have the small target modifier when determining damage? As in trying to hit against a 4 ECM shift? Which should be able to be offset by the ships ECCM controlling the drone.
Chuck
Gut feeling on bases being able to repair themselves...
Bases, as a general rule (MB, SAMS, CP, and OB are exceptions), are unable to move to get to any sort of repair facility. Also, again as a general rule (SAMS and CP are, again, exceptions) serve AS the aforementioned repair facilities.
As such, I would axiomatically accept that bases are able to turn their intrinsic repair facility features on themselves between scenarios, so unless there are specific rules declaring, "The base in this scenario has been able to conduct 'X' number of turns worth of repairs between scenarios," then a base would have been able to conduct sufficient repairs to return it to 100% on its SSD.
This is, however, just my gut feeling.
As far as an orbiting base setting off a mine, and again, this is a gut feeling on the matter, I would think that a base in orbit around a planet would dictate what ALL items, including mines and DefSats would be required to be orbiting that particular planet.
In short, if the base is orbiting at the speed of light (
), so must everything else.
Again, this is just my gut feeling and should NOT be taken as anything else.
Charles Carroll:
Under (R11G) if you are attacking a base you have to have enough firepower to do the job. If you withdraw from the attack and the base is less than 50% destroyed, it will repair itself. However, if it is 50% destroyed it cannot repair itself [it has lost the (R1.1G) function]. At that point you are (the base defender) going to need outside repair systems(repair tug, repair freighters) to repair the base to at least to 50%, plus time to do the repairs).
Rule (M2.414) counts orbital movement as speed one for purposes of mine triggering, so when the base orbits next to the mine (or adjacent to the mine) there is a 1/6th chance the mine will trigger. If it did not trigger, the base can use the normally allowed rules for sweeping mines,(M8.0). Since the base is in orbit (Speed 1) it cannot use phasers (M811). (Or any other direct fire weapons as provided by the rules.
Note, if the base was not in orbit (say static in deep space) mines might be laid adjacentt to it to try to pin things inside the base's docking stations (undock and trigger a mine or launch a shuttle and trigger a mine, or launch drones . . . you get it) and such a base could use phasers to sweep the mines (see the rule for other conditions).
See the rules on sweeping mines (M8.0).
II do not understand your last question. Small target modifiers have no impact on explosions.
You roll for lock-on once per impulse.
Thanks Steve that covered it.
as for the EW issue...it was suggested that because you had a 2 shift to lock on. The mine has a 2 shift built in to damage it.
It appears that is different from the lock on and so does not apply.
Anyway thanks for all your answers. That clears things up pretty well.
Charles Carroll:
I am not sure what you are getting at. You asked:
"And last sweeping question. Does the drone/SS have the small target modifier when determining damage? As in trying to hit against a 4 ECM shift? Which should be able to be offset by the ships ECCM controlling the drone. "
This does not seem to have anything to do with destroying mines. It seems to be a question related to an explosion against a drone or a shuttle (WW). Explostions are unaffected by ECM (I cannot think of any explosion where ECM mitigates it). Mines have ECM which makes it difficult to kill them (the ECM only applies to non-minesweepers trying to sweep mines). But it has no effect on their explosion. So I am confused and I fear your attempt to clarify the issue in your last message did not clear things up.
I believe Charles meant that it was suggested seeking weapons needed to roll on the Proximity of Detonation because of the Sweeping with Seeking weapons rule (M8.24) which reads" Non-Minesweepers have the ECM penalty of (M8.12)..."
That is different from getting a lockon (M8.14) under sweeping with phasers but the number (+2) happens to be the same.
We're in a battle and he dumped Tbombs adjacent my BATS.
Relating to that, is it correct that if a Tbomb is placed by transporter adjacent to a base it arms normally and thanks to (M3.222) is considered "detected and located" for purposes of rolling to lock onto it. This would be different than a standard secretly placed small mine which would require scan detecting under (M7.2)?
G13.59 says that a cloaked ship may not use Erratic Maneuvers, but that EM may be used during the fade-in/fade-out periods.
Based on the sequence of play, I believe this means that during fade-in there will inevitably be an opportunity to fire at the cloaked ship after the cloaking device has been deactivated, but before EM begins. Specifically, on the impulse the cloak is deactivated:
Step 6A4: cloaked ship announces intention to begin EM
Step 6B2: cloaked ship deactivates cloaking device
Step 6D: direct fire
Step 6E: EM takes effect
Is there a way to close this gap? Granted, the +5 range modifier is in effect during this impulse, but the cloaked ship would ideally want to transition from cloaking to EM without this gap.
David Jannke:
I am afraid that all you know is that the a mine (or a dummy) has been placed somewhere in a volume of space of 10,000 Kilometers. You still have to lock-on to in in order to sweep it.
Yes, if you try to sweep it with a seeking weapon and you are NOT a minesweeper normally Thant under the rules the seeking weapon may detonate outside of effective (as in complete destruction of the mine) range which means the mine will then detonate.
The T-bombs dropped next to the base will are normally.
John Williams:
I am afraid not. The Sequence of play rules in this case.
Sounds like a term paper!
So is the proper procedure for sweeping a transporter placed Tbomb in your hex (say you moved in before it activated):
1) Scan with sensors by rolling 1 die which must equal the Tbomb's mine detection number. If you fail to roll that number you may try every 8 subsequent impulses (from M7.22 detecting individual mines).
2) Attempt to get a lock on one time per impulse with a sensor rating of (normal sensor rating - 2) (from M8.14)
3) Then sweep using the appropriate phaser/seeking weapon process with the risk of detonation as you described?
I thought (M7.22), which ends with placing a counter for the mine on the map, was applicable just to hidden mines rather than Tbombs though it certainly does not say that in that section. If you don't need to do step 1 I get that you definitely still need to do steps 2&3.
David Jannike:
Basic Set provided no means for sweeping T-bombs. The only rules for sweeping mines were in advanced missions. They require that the ship in questtion be moving very slowly, and to do it with phasers requires a tractor. Technically there are other ways to sweep mines, e.g., a wld weasel, but that sacrifices the weasel and is not really sweeping. So you have to use the procedures in (M7.0)and (NM8.0).
To be clear, a T-omb cannot ever be transported into a hex as a ship, planet, moon, or shuttle (exception for a ship using hidden cloaking if the laying ship did. not know the hidden cloaked ship was in the hex). Notr yat bases are ships for this purpose. So you can lay ones next to them, but not in the same hex as the base.
Old series Romulan ships (War Eagle, Battle Hawk, etc.) have an NSM included in their BPV. If circumstances warrant, is it permitted to omit the NSM and reduce the cost of the ship by 8? I was recently rounding out an old series fleet and had 80 points left to fill. Using a Battle Hawk without the NSM at 77 points seemed like a much more useful addition to the fleet than a Snipe-B. The point of the scenario was to only use old series ships, which ruled out a Kestrel or Seahawk.
For my 0.02 Quatloos worth, barring any specific scenario rules, I can't see why not.
Why not? Perhaps I can best explain this opinion with an analogy.
Saying you ALWAYS have to have NSMs aboard ships that have it as a standard item would be like saying you ALWAYS have to use fast drones, once they're available as standard issue.
My opinion.
There is no rule allowing you to omit the NSM. You may as well ask if the other ships of the fleet could omit their admin shuttles to reduce costs, or their boarding parties to reduce costs, or crew units, or etc.
NOTE that there is an exception allowed to reduce the number of fighters on a carrier, but that comes with an added limitation that the fighter supplies are also reduced.
As a scenario specific rule it would certainly make sense to allow this. There are clearly Romulan ships with no NSM, the obvious example being any Romulan ship other than a minelayer that has actually used its NSM since it was last resupplied.
So if you are writing the scenario, go for it. But I know of no enabling rule, so if you have an established opponent and scenario and are playing by the book then I don't think it would be allowed.
Edited: Petrick has stated that there is no enabling rule so it's not allowed. I'd still have no trouble with a scenario that allowed it, but it would have to be part of the scenario special rules.
Jeff, regarding:
<HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P>Saying you ALWAYS have to have NSMs aboard ships that have it as a standard item would be like saying you ALWAYS have to use fast drones, once they're available as standard issue.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0>
The difference here is that (FD2.454) specifically says ships are not required to to pay for the general availability drone speed. Compare to (FD2.31), which says the BPV of a ship includes a full load of type-I-slow drones with no provision for refunds by leaving racks partially or fully empty.
That said, and agreeing with SPP's answer, I would also say that as John's opponent, I would consider this a reasonable exception to ask for - especially if we are friends and I know part of the point of the game is trying out an old Hawk series force. After all "special scenario rule" includes any ad hoc agreement players make amongst themselves, and "this ship hasn't gotten its NSM replaced yet cause logistical snafu" doesn't strain any sense of believability setting-wise.
The problem would be that here is no real way for the opponent to know what the ship has and does not have. No way you can tell that the crew, for example, is green recruits or veterans. Basically if you have come to that point (a few BPV points) you could negotiate with your opponent that he might gain a few BPV points to purchase his force. Or you could simply agree that the BPV is close enough and play. Trying to have a ship give up something that it SHOULD have is giving up some of the ship's tactics, i.e., the opponent knows it has no NSM to lay in his path, which is part of its tactics.
Thanks for all the feedback. In this case, while I was limiting myself to old series ships, I got down to the Snipe and thought: "No! Anything but a Snipe! Please! Please! Anything but a Snipe!"
If omitting the NSM was permitted without a formally agreed upon house rule, I was just going to do it without revealing it. Thus, my opponent wouldn't have known that the ship was NSM free and safe to approach.
If it did need to be revealed/agreed upon as a house rule, an option would be to say that one of the ships does not have an NSM without revealing which one. Thus, the opponent can't assume any of them is safe. In essence, this would be the reverse of other Romulan ships, but with the same effect. It might have an NSM. It might not. Find out at your peril.
John Williams:
House rules are house rules, and bring problems because a different ouse may not be aware of it, or a new player learns a ouse rule and not the actual rule (has messed up more than one tournament). But, you paid to play the game and it is your copy.
Question re launching fighters on EM.
Does the EM take effect immediately for the fighters on launch or after fire on the imp of launch ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank