That's not a moon. That's a space station...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 - 01:54 pm: Edit

So far as the (conjectural) deployment of Adder PFs is concerned, the answer might depend on whether or not the Adder-S scout variant would be under the same deployment restrictions as the historical Mobile EW Support Platform.

According to (G35.634), no Mothership or base can carry more than a single MEP. But then, an MEP can lend EW to itself and up to 11 other MWPs in its group, whereas an Adder-S can lend EW to only itself and up to five other Adders in its flotilla.

That said, technically one does not need to have a scout PF in order to deploy a "full" flotilla of PFs. At the time of writing, the Baduvai out in the LMC have no scout PFs at all; whereas the various Omega empires given gunboats in Module Omega #5 were deploying flotillas of "volatile warp" PFs for more than a decade before the first scout or survey PFs appeared in that region of space.

So, even if Motherships and bases are limited to only one Adder-S at a time, they could still potentially deploy as many as two full flotillas of Adders - even if one of those two flotillas has to go without its own EW lending support.

-----

On a side note, if the Andromedans are in fact limited to a single scout PF per Mothership or base, would a survey PF count as the sole "scout" PF for this purpose?

As in, would a given Mothership or base be obliged to take a single Adder-S or a single Adder-Q, but not one of each?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Again, how the cascade of rules references is supposed to work isn't perfectly clear. Thus my question.

Again, I don't expect to get to play any games. I am assuming that a given mothership will be limited to a single flotilla of PFs, and those PFs will use standard PF deployment rules. I do hope that being able to take a "flotilla plus two" is acceptable, though.

But Adders are just so potent that they'd be very hard to not take advantage of. Instead of a Mamba, you can take an entire flotilla. This flotilla has scout channels, two extra TRL, four times as many Ph-2s. Granted they cost way more (340 vs 130), but they allow the Andros a massive increase in weapon density. Even just swapping out a Cobra for four Adders doubles the TRLs and quadruples the phasers (at a cost of 180 vs 83).

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Majead,

I would think if the scenario notes that the moon is the size of a large planet than it blocks line of sight. Otherwise I would use the rules in (P2.23), (P2.3221).

The scenario could note the moon as the size of an large Asteroid (P3.4).

By David Hanson (Glimaash) on Saturday, April 30, 2022 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Looking to clarify terrain that blocks a seekers line of sight to its target.

(P2.3222) states "If the seeking weapon (controlled by the ship) is blocked from lock-on by the planet (most seeking weapons do not have their own lock-on, but the procedure is the same), the weapon loses lock-on because it cannot see the target that the ship’s sensors are locked onto."

If you have non-self guiding drone that loses "lock-on" (though the guiding ship still has lock-on) does it become inert and removed from play?

If you have a self-guided seeking weapon that is under the guidance of a ship, does it still acquire the planet as its target under P2.33 if the controlling ship has a lock-on to the target?

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Wednesday, May 04, 2022 - 03:44 pm: Edit

That is my understanding David. It's like the ship is 'pinging' the target with a targeting laser(though this is not really happening). Can't see the target, you can't see the laser. The weapon is inert and removed from play at the appropriate step.

I have gone back and forth on this one listening to different opinions but now having had a chance to study the rules at length I've settled on that interpretation.

There is more of an interpretation to the latter case. The ship can no longer provide that weapon guidance. Guidance is then normally transferred - but it can't because there is no eligible target. The P2.33 Self-Guiding talks about units already providing their own guidance which would acquire the planet. Strict wording would seem to tend toward the self-guiding unit being involuntarily released, attempting to gain their own lockon but not having the target to do so and so losing lockon. The planet was never a target and was never between an actively self guiding weapon and it's target as it was not self guiding until after the planet got in the way.

That is strict wording. I have certainly played or expected that the breaking of lockon by the planet, release of guidance, adoption of self-guidance, and then lock-on to the planet all happen at the same time so the weapon locks onto the planet.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Wednesday, May 04, 2022 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Speaking of LOS, do ground bases have LOS to a ground base 60 degrees left or right ?
I'm thinking a ground base facing F does not have a LOS to a ground base facing C so would not be able to transfer control of seeking weapons ?
Does this F facing ground base have LOS to a base facing A or E but not facings B, C, D ?
Does it have LOS to any ground base ??


Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, May 04, 2022 - 08:10 pm: Edit

I think the ground bases are beyond the horizon from one hex side to another.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Wednesday, May 04, 2022 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Module G3 lists Romulan bombers with megapacks having increased weapon loadouts (+2 Plasma Ds).

J16.249 states "Megafighter systems do not add any weapons or pods to bombers, they only increase speed and add two damage points."

Which is correct? Is there some rule I'm missing that gives Romulans (seemingly uniquely) better bombers?

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Wednesday, May 04, 2022 - 11:43 pm: Edit

That is what I am thinking Wayne.

Cheers
Frank

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, May 05, 2022 - 05:30 pm: Edit

With regards to bases transferring control of seeking weapons from one base to another, I've long been under the impression that, because DefSats also serve as transporter relays from one ground base to another, there's an intrinsic link/channel that enables them to also transfer control of seeking weapons from one base to another.

HOWEVER, I am (all too) often incorrect and don't have the rules in front of me, so perhaps it would be wiser to assume that such a transfer isn't possible?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, May 05, 2022 - 09:58 pm: Edit

While optional rule (R1.15H) permits using DefSats as transporter repeaters, there is no provision listed for them providing a seeking weapon sensor channel link.

However, there's nothing preventing a ground base from transferring control of a seeking weapon to another ground base, so long as both have line-of-sight to the seeking weapon itself; the two ground bases do not have to have line-of-sight to each other (there is no requirement in (F3.5) transfer of control for the transferring units to have line-of-sight to each other, just to the seeking weapon).

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Friday, May 06, 2022 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Is "Ask Admiral Vanaxilth" a Fed Commander dedicated Q&A because this from the latest newsletter seems to match up to SFB rule numbering and says ballistic targeting can include turns. Steve Petrick posted clearly that they couldn't.

_______Steve Petrick posted
Note that a "regular pattern of sideslips" is "move in direction A, sideslip in direction B, move in direction A, sideslip in direction B" or "move two (or three or four or etc.) hexes in direction A, sideslip in direction B, move two (or three or four or etc.) hexes in direction A, sideslip in direction B." Essentially because of the map grid, you may have to adopt such a course to "move in a straight line to the target." You canNOT Turn, e.g., move 20 hexes in direction A, turn to direction B and move 20 hexes. A "move in direction A, then a sideslip in direction B, move in direction A, then sideslip in direction F" while a regular pattern of sideslips, would obviously violate (F2.21) and it should be obvious that by having been launched on such a trajectory (ballistic) the seeking weapon essentially forgoes the ability to use an HET.

_______From the newsletter Ask Admiral Vanaxilth
Roch Chartrand asks: Can someone explain or give me an example of ballistic targeting (F4.0), especially the procedure in (F4.11)?
ANSWER: A ship in hex 2008 launches a drone in direction A, targeted at hex 1908. The drone moves ahead to 2007A, then turns to 1907F, then turns to 1807E. [Note these are the only moves that satisfy (F2.21) and (F2.22), unless the drone does a high energy turn, which it is not required to do.] At that point, it would begin evading its target hex, and could move to 1708E, 1707E or 1707F.


I ask only because having the ability for drones to turn might allow me to bombard ground bases from outside their firing arcs via ballistic targeted drones (or plasmas) and give my Kzinti campaign empire a huge and probably unbalancing advantage. That is at the cost of allowing Carnivon to use deathbolts as super-antidrone fighters but what can you do, right?

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Friday, May 06, 2022 - 05:32 pm: Edit

If that is the case (that you can turn and HET a normal ballistic drone to hit a ground target or a ship in space, then why have control channels, just launch all drones ballistic).

I think a type III drone on wild/tame boar can do turn maneuvers.

(F4.11) if target at a hex than a ballistic drone will "pursue" this hex by the most nearly direct route (F2.2).
Looks like also need line of sight when launched ballistic at a hex or target for a normal ballistic drone.

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Friday, May 06, 2022 - 07:27 pm: Edit

David Jannke, you have to look at the following rules:

(F4.11) PROCEDURE: To establish a ballistic course, designate a hex, not a unit, as the target of the seeking weapon. The seeking weapon will “pursue” this hex by the most nearly direct route (F2.2).

Only T-IIIXX can do multiple hexes.

Once it reaches its target hex, it will evade.

As for targeting ground bases with ballistic targeting, the following rule applies:

(P2.713) Seeking weapons can be fired at a ground base using ballistic targeting (F4.0), but only from a range of 4 hexes or less. Weapons fired in this manner cannot be distracted by ECM or WW.
Weapons fired ballistically at ground targets do explode on impact. Weapons cannot be fired for ballistic bombardment under passive fire
control (D19.0) as target tracking is inadequate. Submunitions from a ballistic MW drone cannot target a ground base.

There was also a rulling that T-IIIXX cannot use wild boar targeting to target small ground bases.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, May 07, 2022 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Shawn G,

The Module G3 Master Annexes after action reports and the Module G4 Master Annexes contain the errata and updates for the annexes.

The Romulan bombers are already listed in the G3 after action reports.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 04:47 am: Edit

If the annexes are correct, does that mean that J16.249 is in error, and should just be ignored?

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 07:15 am: Edit

Thanks Jessica.

Cheers
Frank

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 08:21 am: Edit

Just a clarification request. Under S8.361, is a fleet of 2 D5Ls and 2 D5 combat types legal? Or, in order to have the second D5L would more D5s need to be present?

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 09:10 am: Edit

Dennis,

The force is legal.

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 09:11 am: Edit

2 D5Ls and 2 D5s fleet is legal as long as you define one of the D5L as the flagship as per S8.363

Marcel

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 09:20 am: Edit

Jamey - The errata states the annex is in error and J16 is correct.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 09:24 am: Edit

OK, so if part of a larger force mix with say a CC as a flagship, each D5L would need to have two D5 combat types to lead, correct?

Thanks for quick response!

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 09:25 am: Edit

Marel, Per (S8.361) you would need four D5s.

(S8.361) A second (third, fourth, etc.) leader ship of any given type cannot be included unless all other such leaders are accompanied by two “combat variants” of the same basic hull type. For example, you may have one D5L if you wish, but if you want two of them, there must be two other D5s in the fleet (following the first D5L).

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 10:53 am: Edit

Dennis, that's not completely correct.

The rule isn't that each D5L needs to have two combat variants. It's that the first leader requires two combat variants before a second leader can be used. The second leader does NOT need to be covered unless the use of a third leader is desired.

Also, S8.362 requires the largest leaders to be covered by two combat variants before smaller classes can include leaders. So adding a CC to the force changes the equation. For the D5Ls and D5s to be legal, the CC would also have to be accompanied by two combat variants (e.g., a D7C and two D7s). This would then permit the four D5s.

Without two D6/7s to accompany the CC, the first D5L isn't permitted, let alone the second.