By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Thursday, June 09, 2022 - 06:37 pm: Edit |
Frank,
The HBM info is in module R1 (SSD page 11), has 6x deck drews, and 7x crew units. The written rules in Captains basic book R1.4 (page 174, 2005 edition).
By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Thursday, June 09, 2022 - 07:27 pm: Edit |
Thanks Wayne.
Seems G3 is pointing to the wrong module re the HBM.
Indicates it is listed in module J.
Cheers
Frank
By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Saturday, June 25, 2022 - 10:35 pm: Edit |
G24.352 deals with the EPV/BPV split for scouts. It reads:
Quote:G24.352 If [the scout] is used with other non-scout ships on the same side the reduced combat BPV is ignored and the economic BPV is used for both purposes. See exception in (G24.355).
By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, July 09, 2022 - 12:29 pm: Edit |
When launching an ECP, must the launching ship announce the tube or torpedo type as if it were a PPT launching?
By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, July 09, 2022 - 06:06 pm: Edit |
Well in a few impulses it will start to generate ECM for you. Also if launched at less than speed 32 it would be very apparent what it is.
By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, July 09, 2022 - 11:17 pm: Edit |
Well, maybe my question isn't that clear. When dumping the ECP, does the type of launch tube have to be identified. When launching even a psuedo, the warhead strength has to be announced. The rules for ECP say it is launched as any PPT would, so does that include giving someone a clue as to which type of launch tube the ECP came from?
By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 12:15 am: Edit |
Dennis,
ECP Plasma (FP12.11) must be announced.
The tube it was launched from is known unless you are playing with Tactical Intelligence (D17.0), then it will depend on range and other factors for the information.
By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 09:07 am: Edit |
Wayne, thanks, we kinda figured that was the case.
By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 09:19 am: Edit |
Shawn, I would suspect that the intent is that the higher BPV should be used when scout functions will be useable with other units. Likely those weird cases weren't really thought of when the rule was written. But, that's not what is written. You'll have to use your best judgement until official word can be given.
Also, are those weird cases actually typos? Honest question; I don't know.
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, July 16, 2022 - 11:38 pm: Edit |
The Andromedan Threat File (Module 3A) creates a series of "heavy" ships, e.g. the Heavy Viper, Heavy Cobra, and Heavy Python, among others. Each of these ships is slightly larger than the normal versions, e.g. a Heavy Cobra is 4.5 "hanger space points," whereas a normal Cobra is 4 hanger space points. As a result, an Intruder can carry three standard Cobras, but can only carry two Heavy Cobras, with the last three space points able to carry a standard Viper, small energy module, etc.
Before the Heavy Ships from the Threat File, an Intruder (for example) had to be configured to either carry two large or three medium satellite ships (among other possible configurations). An Intruder configured to carry two large satellites could carry two Cobras because a smaller ship can fit into a larger hanger, but an Intruder configured to carry three medium satellites could not carry a Python because the Python was too big for the medium-sized hangers.
However, the Threat Files rules don't say how the new ship sizes impact hanger configurations. Is a Heavy Python considered a "large" satellite and therefore able to fit into a hanger space configured for a large satellite or does it require a different configuration? Can an Intruder configured for three medium satellites carry two Heavy Cobras and a standard Viper or is that considered a different configuration?
Although I can see arguments either way, I am hoping that the heavy and standard sized ships are both considered the same size class for hanger configuration purposes. Otherwise, managing the hanger configurations in a campaign becomes even more complicated than it already is.
Right now, I tentatively have an Intruder set up to carry a Heavy Cobra, a Heavy Asp, a PSS, and EM-S. If I can call the first two slots "medium" then I have a lot more options for round two.
By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 01:15 am: Edit |
The original rules were written assuming that the only options for satellite ship sizes were 3 (small), 4 (medium), or 6 (large). The introduction of other satellite ship sizes breaks the rules somewhat.
Look at it this way: a mothership has to decide and declare how its hangar space will be divided, and it is then stuck with that until whatever lets it reconfigure its hangar space. While the base rules only give options of small, medium, and large, with the new satellite ships, you actually get more options.
Let's take an Intruder. It has 12 spaces available in its hangar. Traditionally, that means four spaces of size 3, three spaces of size 4, or two spaces of size 6. But, really, it can do anything that adds up to 12. So it could do one space of size six and two spaces of size 3. Or, with those odd sized satellite ships, it could do two spaces of size 4.5, and one space of size 3.
Then, for any given space, you can have it hold a single ship of the space's size or less. So, an Intruder with two spaces of size six can carry two Mambas, two Cobras, or two Vipers (or any combination of two of those). But if it isn't carrying Mambas, is is "wasting" storage space. In the case of an Intruder configured with two spaces of size 4.5 and one of size 3, it could carry two ordinary Cobras, but the third ship can still only be a Viper.
Or did I completely misunderstand the question?
(Do note I am totally ignoring MWPs and PFs for this discussion. I am not as sure on them, and can't look them up at the moment.)
By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 02:06 am: Edit |
Please confirm: The Andromedan Threat File (Module 3A) is only available as hard copy and not as PDF?
--Mike
By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 10:11 am: Edit |
PDFs on Warehouse 23
Rules
http://www.warehouse23.com/products/star-fleet-battles-module-c3a-the-andromedan-threat-file-rulebook
SSDs B&W
http://www.warehouse23.com/products/star-fleet-battles-module-c3a-the-andromedan-threat-file-ssd-book-b-and-w
SSDs Color.
http://www.warehouse23.com/products/star-fleet-battles-module-c3a-the-andromedan-threat-file-ssd-book-color
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 10:13 am: Edit |
Hi Mike,
My question focuses on what you said in your third paragraph:
"Or, with those odd sized satellite ships, it could do two spaces of size 4.5, and one space of size 3."
Is the configuration listed above a formally different hanger configuration than a hanger set up for three standard Cobras? (Meaning that the Intruder would need to go to a shipyard for a major overhaul to switch between the two?)
The "pro" argument is this:
The rule has always been that a smaller ship can fit into a larger hanger bay, but not the other way around. Since 4.5 is obviously larger than 4, a hanger bay set up for a standard 4 hanger space point Cobra cannot fit a 4.5 hanger space point Heavy Cobra.
The "against" argument is this:
When Small Support Units were introduced (Rule G35), it was explicitly stated in G35.111 that the single space units required a new hanger configuration type and specifically set up the single space hanger. Otherwise, per G35.112, that single space SSU would require the use of an entire hanger bay configured for something larger.
So going into the Treat File, we have large, medium, small, and single space hanger bays.
In the Threat File, RC10.N1B says that there are still "small, medium, and large" satellite ships, but also adds the concept of "hanger space points". It calls the Heavy Mamba a "large satellite ship," but one that requires 6.5 hanger space points, not 6. The "pro" argument assumes that three new hanger configuration types have been created (such that we now have hangers of sizes 6.5, 6, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, and 1), but this is never explicitly stated. We are inferring it.
However, it is also possible to interpret this as saying we have small satellites at 3 or 3.5 hanger space points, medium satellites at 4 or 4.5, and large at 6 or 6.5. Thus, a hanger bay configured for a small satellite ship can hold a 3 or 3.5 hanger space point ship, a medium bay a 4 or 4.5, and a large bay a 6 or 6.5, provided that the total hanger space point tally is within the mothership's capacity. E.g. Threat File clearly says that an Intruder configured for two large satellites could not carry two Heavy Pythons because that would require 13 hanger space points.
Under the "against" interpretation, an Intruder configured with three medium hanger bays could carry two Heavy Cobras in two of the hanger bays, and then would account for their slightly larger size by carrying a Viper in the last one. However, a major hanger overhaul would not be necessary to switch from carrying three standard Cobras to two Heavy Cobras and a Viper. In a standard patrol scenario, the difference is academic. However, in a campaign, the difference becomes very important.
Going back to my hypothetical Intruder satellite compliment (Heavy Cobra, Heavy Asp, PSS, and EM-S), under the "pro" interpretation, I have hangers of sizes 4.5, 3.5, 1 and 3. This means that in future combat rounds the Intruder cannot carry two standard Cobras without first undergoing a major overhaul. In contrast, under the "against" interpretation, I have four bays: medium, medium, single, and small. The two mediums could each carry a 4 or 4.5 ship, and the small could carry a 3 or 3.5. However, the ships in those hanger bays would still be subject to the Intruder's overall limit of 12 hanger space points. Thus, it would be possible to carry a Heavy Cobra and a plasma pod in the two medium bays and a Heavy Asp in the small bay if the single space bay is left empty.
I admit to being biased towards the second interpretation because it allows greater flexibility and makes the "Heavy" series of ships much more manageable in a campaign. Under the "pro" interpretation, I would probably reject my hypothetical satellite configuration because I would be limiting myself to never carrying more than a single Cobra-sized ship.
By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 10:32 am: Edit |
>> PDFs on Warehouse 23
Thx! I have some reading to catch up on...
--Mike
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 10:44 am: Edit |
Looking at how long that is, let me simplify it.
My question is: which of these two situations did the Threat File create:
A) Motherships that have hanger bays configured for ships of 6.5, 6, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, and 1 hanger space points or,
B) Motherships that have large hanger bays that can hold a 6 or a 6.5 hanger space point ship, medium hanger bays that can hold a 4.5 or 4 hanger space point ship, and small hanger bays that can hold a 3.5 or 3 hanger space point ship (plus single space hangers for SSUs). Under "B", the aggregate number of hanger space points that could be carried would still be subject to the mothership's total space point capacity.
If "A" is correct, managing the new "heavy" ships in a campaign becomes very challenging because there are so many potential hanger bay configurations possible and any variation requires a major overhaul. If "B" is correct, the fact that the heavy and standard satellite ships of the same size can both use the same hanger (provided total space point capacity is met) greatly increases flexibility and simplifies hanger configuration management.
By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 10:50 am: Edit |
Excellent question, Jay. Again, while I'm no expert, the best interpretation I can give is that there is some element in both your "Pro" and "Against" arguments.
Basically, if an Andromedan wishes to carry SSUs in large numbers, it is indeed best set up in that configuration. IN THEORY, an Intruder, with twelve spaces of hangar according to the new rules in C3A, can be configured with twelve "Bays" of one space each, enabling them to carry the twelve MWP at the expense of not being able to carry any sort of non-SSU SatShip.
Likewise, if 6.5 spaces of the twelve space hangar are configured to handle a heavy large SatShip, that "Bay" can only handle one unit, be it a Heavy Mamba or MWP. Despite two of them together being only a small fraction the size of the aforementioned Heavy Mamba, perhaps even to the point where two of them would fit into a ground depression that the Heavy Mamba would be extraordinarily snug in, the Andromedans can NOT put the two MWP/SSU into the hangar bay that was configured for the Heavy Mamba.
This is, however, just my interpretation, and I'm wrong probably more often than right...
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 12:09 pm: Edit |
Hi Jeff,
I agree with your interpretation of G35.112, but I am also not a fan of that rule. I think it's too severe.
Instead, I would replace G35.112 with something along the lines of: one SSU can fit in a small hanger, two can fit in a medium hanger, and three can fit in a large hanger. You are still paying a penalty in unused space, but it's not nearly as severe. But that's just my two cents worth.
By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 12:22 pm: Edit |
My reading of the rules suggests the problem may be in your campaign rules. In SFB the rules are very straight forwarded, configure the mothership for the satellite ship(s) you plan on it carrying. Once this configuration is made, it cannot be changed in an SFB scenario (meaning combat.)
Outside of combat is something addressed by your campaign rules and could be a Major Refit, a Minor Refit, or as simple as the procedure for adding skiffs to a freighter.
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 12:32 pm: Edit |
That's my point exactly. Having seven types of hangers (6.5, 6, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3 and 1) works fine in a normal patrol scenario (where each battle is isolated, and there isn't any "before" or "after") but becomes almost unworkable in a campaign under the current hanger reconfiguration rules. I don't think that was intended; I think it's more likely an unintended consequence. My "B" interpretation is a way to keep things comparatively simple without changing or contradicting anything that has already been written.
By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 01:35 pm: Edit |
Is there some reason that you think that changing the configurations is difficult? I have always thought that a mother ship could change out the "mounting brackets" or reconfigure the "sliding walls" like a hotel conference room in a matter of minutes, like 20-30 or so perhaps. Just long enough that you can't do it during a scenario, but you could change it all around any time outside of one freely. You still (per scenario) have to define how many bays of what size, i.e. 2x4.5 and 1x3, and you are limited during that scenario to holding 3 sat ships of that size or smaller. But for the next scenario you just pick different numbers if you want.
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 02:11 pm: Edit |
Operation Unity (U6.281) and rule G19.212 (last sentence) require a major overhaul at a starbase to change the hanger configuration. In Operation Unity terms, this means skipping a combat round and spending it at the starbase. The mothership then returns to the force pool and can be used in the subsequent round.
In Operation Unity, having to send a Dominator back to the starbase to reconfigure hangers puts the Andromedans at a serious disadvantage during the next combat round. In the smaller, scaled down campaign I am creating, even sending an Intruder back puts the Andromedans at a serious disadvantage in the next round if I follow the Operation Unity reconfiguration rule. So to a fair degree, these ships would be "fixed" in their original configurations.
When satellites were only small, medium or large, it wasn't that big a deal because you could find a combination pretty easily that didn't waste much, if any, space. However, if the Andromedans have seven hanger types, then wasted space can add up quickly.
By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 04:38 pm: Edit |
Jay,
My understanding is that the hangars are not as flexible as you want it. A hangar space is what it is configured for and it can't "steal" half a space point for another hangar.
That said, this is simply my reading and my understanding. I can be completely, totally wrong. SPP (and SVC) are the only ones who can definitively answer.
By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 05:47 pm: Edit |
As I see it, if a Dominator is configured to haul four large SatShips, it can, if necessary, haul four medium sized SatShips if that's all that's available. Sure, it's less than an ideal load-out (six medium would, of course, be better), but it requires the Andromedan players to plan accordingly.
The risk that the only mother ships capable of handling larger SatShips being lost and stranding those SatShips is just one of those risks that can make for a colorful campaign. Besides, imagine a game where, due to their only being one mothership in theater that can handle the large SatShips, and the GP player(s) notice that the Andromedan player is flying that one mothership in a rather unaggressive manner. Would he/she/they recognize the campaign vulnerability of the loss of that key mothership and press their attacks on it?
(And could a devious Andromedan player use that perception as bait for a trap to encourage GP player/s to overextend/fixate on that one target? )
Still, if you wish to avoid that problem altogether, an option might be to exclusively use only one size of SatShip. I wouldn't, but that's just me.
Anyway, that's just my 0.02 Quatloos worth
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, July 17, 2022 - 06:00 pm: Edit |
Thanks, Mike. Maybe I'm just too familiar with aircraft carrier hangers, where it's comparatively simple to adjust things a little depending on exactly what's being carried. However, I'm not sure that the ramifications that having seven hanger sizes would have on campaigns/Operation Unity were fully anticipated either. I suspect that Operation Unity isn't something that comes up too often.
Speaking of which, I thought I would re-post these questions here. I originally posted them in General Discussions (since not all are rules questions), but never got any feedback.
1) In another post, I've seen a comment that the Operation Unity orders of battle were updated in CL 30, CL 36 and CL 43. Is this correct? If so, are the updates cumulative? In other words, if I got the updates in CL 43, would I also have the updates in the earlier two CLs or would I need to purchase all three to get the full picture?
2) U6.32 says that the Galactic Power forces may include no more than one SC2 ship, five SC3 ships and six SC4 ships. Are there any required minimums for the smaller classes? For example, if the Galactic powers brough in a fleet of only six ships, could it include one SC2 and five SC3 ships?
3) U6.324 says that six standard (no leader or scout) PFs may be brough in as casual PFs instead of an SC3 ship. Is this in addition to the PF flotilla that may be brought in on an SCS or PFT, or instead of that flotilla?
4) Do the Andromedan satellite bases include a hanger module for MWPs?
5) The Andromedan Order of Battle includes two Bull Snakes. What role do they play? Since mines are not allowed, I don't see them accomplishing much, if anything, unless maybe they use troops as boarding parties to overwhelm an enemy ship?
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |