Ok but where's any *rules* that indicate anything to that effect? Cause right now we just have (J4.818) that specifies "a shuttle" with no further restrictions or qualifications. Is the Stinger-2 a shuttle? Yes. Does the Gorn ship have deck crews? Yes. Therefore the Stinger-2 can be repaired by a Gorn deck crew.

By Randy Green (Hollywood750) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 06:58 pm: Edit

I'm sure that Alex is correct here. Hopefully my maintainers can ignore that Hydran "stink." long enough to get them repaired and back into action. Or moved to the balcony where they will do some good as padding. ;)

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 09:25 pm: Edit

From (S8.62), under (S8.6) Mixed Allied Forces: Note that carriers can, within various practical limits, provide "service" to foreign fighters during a scenario (though they may not have the type of ammunition the fighter needs). See (J4.895), (J4.8963), (J4.891), and (J4.8962) for some examples.

(J4.895) Any fighter box can load chaff on any fighter so equipped or repair damage on any shuttle.

It certainly sounds to me as if, yes, a Gorn deck crew can repair a Hydran Stinger-2 fighter.

By Peter DiMitri (Pdimitri) on Tuesday, February 01, 2022 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Hello SPP,

Concerning shield boundaries.

(D3.41) SHIELD BOUNDARIES: In the event that the line from the
firing to target hex travels exactly along a hex side (for example, if the
firing ship in the illustration above was in hex 0304), then the shield
actually hit is resolved as follows:
A. Examine the impulse chart,
B. Determine which ship is scheduled to move next (including
the Order of Precedence)

and further on, the following sentence:

If both ships are scheduled to move, refer to (D3.43).

2 ships are at speed 10 and the fire is split between shields. One ship has turn mode D, and the other has turn mode C, so according to the order of precedence, the ship with turn mode D would move first in the impulse, but they are actually both scheduled to move.

Is D3.43 invoked if they both move, regardless of order of precedence? Or does order or precedence take care of the shield facing issue?

By Fred Werenich (Phredator) on Thursday, February 03, 2022 - 04:41 am: Edit

Peter Dimitri if both ships move, move only the target and see if that solves things
per D3.43 A. If both ships are to move simultaneously in their next movement, and this movement still leaves the situation unresolved, judge the shield hit from the situation as if ONLY the target ship had moved.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Thursday, February 03, 2022 - 11:03 am: Edit

In your example, you would move the ship with turn mode D virtually one hex forward to determine shield facing, as turn mode is part of the order of precedence.

"Simultaneous" movement would be invoked if same speed, same unit type, same turn mode, and same nimble status, plus a few other edge case things are all the same. In that case, then you would move the target ship.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 03, 2022 - 11:19 am: Edit

I concur with Jamey. The sentence "If both ships are scheduled to move, refer to (D3.43)." can be a bit vague on its own, but clause B earlier in the rule makes it clear we are to determine which ship moves next, as precisely as possible, which is why the OoP is referenced. Also note (D3.412) and clause A of (D3.43) which both specifically refer to truly simultaneous movement. Ships at the same speed but different turn modes will be scheduled to move in the same impulse, but not at the same time within that impulse - the Turn Mode D ship in the given example is clearly scheduled to move first, even if it is via the last tie break of the OoP.

By Peter DiMitri (Pdimitri) on Saturday, February 12, 2022 - 08:04 am: Edit

I am not sure if I am asking this in the right place, but I am looking at a Mobile Base SSD from Module R1.

It says that cloaks for the Romulans and Orions cost 15 BPV, but that the energy cost of the cloak is 12.

However, the MB only has 10 points of power. How can the cloak cost of the MB be more than the power it actually has? Am I missing something?

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, February 12, 2022 - 10:33 am: Edit

It would have to use its batteries to give it 14 power, but then it could cloak but not use shields. Or add a power module.

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Saturday, February 12, 2022 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Hmm, very odd given the cost to cloak an entire base station is 8, BATS and Sector Bases are 12. It is listed on the SSD and again in G3 Annexes.

Perhaps they are anticipating a large number of power augmenting pods/modules attached? Still likely excessive.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, February 12, 2022 - 05:57 pm: Edit

The cost is likely due to its ungainly and awkward shape. Do note that the more advanced (and flexible) Operations Base can't even cloak at all.

SVC CONFIRMS THIS INTERPRETATION

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, February 12, 2022 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Peter,

You would have to add a R1.17 Power Augmentation Module (PAM) (R1, pg 11) or a R1.17A Heavy Power Augmentation Module (R8, pg 3).

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, February 12, 2022 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Also, the velcro used to hold the MB together doesn't cloak well.

--Mike

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Saturday, February 12, 2022 - 11:31 pm: Edit

So technically...G13.21 Energy Cost of operation says the after slash (for a mobile base G3 lists 12/4) cost is used should the unit not use its warp engines for power.

I would certainly not have my mobile base use warp engines for power. This is somewhat facilitated by the fact that it has no warp engines.

Some people might argue that warp reactors must also be not used for power but that is unambiguously NOT what the rule says (it specifically lists "warp engines") and that would have (some) implications for ALL ships with both cloaks and AWR. It is always possible that has been ruled on somewhere else but it is not in the errata.

It seems to me you can pick your type of unbalanced setup for this one: Arm your MB with a pair of battle pods (if Klingon conversions allowed) and two heavy power augmentation modules and then you can cloak all you want and become a terror if the 'no warp engines' rule is applied, no additional BPV surcharge need be paid.

On the other hand, have a cloak on a MB without pods, make AWR have to be shut down to get the lower number, and you can't cloak despite having a higher BPV. You also need to assume the Roms are so poor at base design they chose to use AWR despite the fact they have minimal need for it and it screws up their cloak.

An additional item influencing the decision might be that AWR on a base are damaged on warp hits but that condition does not suggest treatment as an 'engine' anywhere but for damage - for good reason as no one wants BATS flying around on their own.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, February 13, 2022 - 01:45 am: Edit

I believe bases need AWR for their positional stabilizers. I may be wrong though.

But as David mentioned such a base will likely have additional power from its pods/augmentation modules. It needs them anyway to operate its special sensors and arming its phasers.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, February 13, 2022 - 09:33 pm: Edit

See (G29.14). The higher cost applies if the positional stabilizer is on; lower cost if it is off. Cannot be changed during scenario.

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Saturday, March 12, 2022 - 07:49 pm: Edit

A scatterpack is ready to release. You do not want to provide guidance to all six of the type I explosive medium speed (no ATG) drones in the pack, either because you wish to launch a drone yourself later that impulse or because in order to do so you would have to involuntarily drop tracking to another drone already on the board.

Can you choose not to provide tracking to one or more of the six scatterpack drones and have them instead go inert or are you forced to provide tracking to them whether you want to or not. If you are forced to provide tracking to them, if that requires dropping tracking to other drones already on the board are you forced to do so?

Rules relating to the question:

(FD7.31) ...If an SP meets its release conditions, it will release its submunitions even if there is no unit that can control them at that point. This will result in the submunitions being lost if they are incapable of gaining their own lock-ons.

(FD7.36) OWNER CONTROL: The drones released by the SP must be guided by a unit from the same side that launched the SP and count against the guiding unit’s control rating (F3.0)...

The positions in the discussion today were that FD7.36 says 'must be guided' so there is no choice about whether you provide guidance or don't, you must unless it is totally impossible vs. that section is devoted to telling you how to control the drones coming out of the scatterpack not that they must be controlled.

The specific situation we had was the owner wanting to launch a drone from racks the same impulse and not having channels if they were all used up with the sp release but if "must" really means "must" then there is nothing saying you can choose to maintain tracking on other drones already on the board either. Either an interpretation or a rules clarification would be necessary.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, March 12, 2022 - 07:58 pm: Edit

The 'MUST' in (FD7.36) is for who can take guidance control of those drones (side, empire), not that all of them must be controlled as (FD7.31) is for how many of them will be due to the tactical situation. A drone closer to the target will probably have a higher priority for the control channel.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Saturday, March 12, 2022 - 08:29 pm: Edit

At the moment of launch, if you have a drone on the table and 6 from the pack and a control limit of 6, you can pick any one of them to go inert immediately at that time. I don't think that you can choose not to control one if you have the control channel available, but I also can't think of why you wouldn't want to. Even if you intend to launch a drone later in the turn, at that point of launch you can pick whichever drone (of the 7) you want to be the one to go inert.

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Sunday, March 13, 2022 - 01:41 am: Edit

Well you can't voluntarily release control at the moment of drone launch, that is only done during the transfer of control step. You might be able to force yourself to "involuntarily" drop control by deliberately exceeding your channels.

The situation we had was that a SP blossomed during the MW Release Step of the seeking weapons stage 6B6 but the player wanted to launch a drone in the Launch Drones phase which is immediately after it also in 6B6. If all the channels were taken by the SP then no drone could be voluntarily dropped because you are past that stage. The question at that point would be "if you launch a drone and don't have a channel for it does that cause an involuntary drop or can you not launch a new drone because you don't have a channel for it and you are past the voluntary drop stage?"

I can't find but seem to remember a rule saying you must provide guidance at time of launch but can't find it to check how it is worded and what happens when you don't have enough channels.

My position was that you don't need to guide all the SP drones and can leave a channel open for your later launch. The opposing position was that you couldn't as you MUST guide all drones coming out of the SP.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, March 13, 2022 - 06:39 am: Edit

On SP drone control, in (FD7.36) Owner control: (and subs) and I think in (FD7.3) Procedure: (last paragraph)

and (F3.31) Control Requirements: (and F3.32)
and involuntary transfer (F3.532)

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Sunday, March 13, 2022 - 04:26 pm: Edit

TY Wayne for the rule numbers, I didn't have it handy. But yes, all the examples we're talking about are not voluntary release, they're involuntary. Obviously if your drone channels are full and you launch a drone, that launch is voluntary, but what follows is an immediate involuntary release of control of an excess drone.


My response was to say that the debate of whether you "must" assume control is rendered moot because either way you can do the later launch, at which point you can decide which drone is "lost." So it's strictly better to just control all the drones you can coming out of the SP, regardless of your plans for later in the turn.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 03, 2022 - 11:44 am: Edit

Looking for some opinions, for megafighters that have the statement "Historically no megapack (J16.0) was developed for this fighter.", would that unit be considered conjectural or an unbuilt variant?

The reason for that question, in a campaign where conjectural units are not allowed this would or would not allow certain megafighters.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, April 03, 2022 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Any fighter not in service (at the time megapacks came out) would have that line so it would be up to whoever is GMing (or taking a really good and hard look at the techtree) ...

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, April 12, 2022 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Question on J11 fighter pods. Is the initial load-out of pods free (no cost)?