Archive through March 10, 2023
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions: SFB Rules Q&A: Archive through March 10, 2023
By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Thursday, March 02, 2023 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Thanks SPP.

Cheers
Frank

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 09:45 am: Edit

Two questions on Andromedan PFs (KC1.0)

1) The base intro to (KC1.0) says that Andro PFs are launched and recovered like any other satellite ship. That would appear to mean that it costs the same power and use of a whole transporter as it would to launch a Mamba. Do I understand that correctly?

That would mean it could take a while for an Intruder to get all of its PFs out and into combat. Which is fine. I am just trying to make sure.

2) An Andromedan player can only take a maximum of 6 PFs in any given force. Is that correct? (KC1.5) says that they use all of the applicable rules from (K0.0), but there are also a couple callbacks to how MWPs work, which introduces a bit of uncertainty. (Since you can have more than six MWPs in a force.)

(As a side note, even MWPs are inconsistent in how many can be carried. (G35.612) says that "motherships can replace any or all of their satellite ships with MWPs," yet (R10.48) says "no single mothership or base ever had more than a dozen MWPs.")

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 03:09 pm: Edit

We are looking at doing a revised edition of Module R6. Id you Have any corrections or reports on Module R6, please get them posted soon they can be dealt with.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/12031/42670.html?1677895113

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 11:56 am: Edit

Hi Mike,

1) You are partially correct. A PF is considered the same size as an SSU so only requires a single point of power to be launched or recovered. However, each PF does require a separate transporter. So yes, it would take two turns for an Intruder to fully launch a flotilla of six PFs.

2) I've typically combined S8.341 (only one PFT per fleet) with S8.221 (Andromedan limits apply at the mothership level) to allow two PF flotillas if each flotilla is brought in by a different mothership. This may not be the only interpretation, but it seemed to make sense to me.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 03:23 pm: Edit

I think you can use a DisDev as a transporter. Don't have the SSD in front of me.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 06:44 pm: Edit

You can, but it's still one PF per displacement device so at best an Intruder can launch 5 per turn (3 via transporter and 2 via DisDev).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Alex Chobot:

The range for a lock on to a small ground base is established by the rule for small ground bases. You are no more likely to succeed in landing the jamming than you are a transporter (although transporters are limited to five hexes range) or a disruptor bolt or a photon torpedo or even phasers.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Steve, if that is the intent, I totally understand and agree with it, but (R1.14) never *says* that.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Alex Chobot: Try to hit a ground base with a drone from beyond five hexes range. Try it with a self-guided drone from beyond five hexes range. Even if you maintained control of the drone all you would hit is the planet, even if a scout was lending your ship guiding the drone ECCM.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 05:21 pm: Edit

I understand that, but (R1.14C2) already covers that case by saying the base cannot be targeted at all by seeking weapons outside of five hexes. What I am pointing out is that there is nothing in (R1.14) that says there is no lock-on to small ground bases outside of five hexes. If that is the intent, then that language needs to be added. Your ruling is currently not supported/shown in the text, i.e. it is an errata not an ambiguity.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 06:52 pm: Edit

My understanding (on EW range vs small ground bases) is derived from the rule for Special Sensors (G24.161) notes you must have a lock-on to perform its function.
I can see that (R1.14C2) could have some extra text, as noted by Alex.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 07:35 pm: Edit

This is very interesting, because my group _for decades_ has allowed ECM lending to a ground base from further than 5 hexes, a successful sensor roll gives you a lock on to everything on the map, in general, and R1.14 only limits weapon fire and seeking weapon targeting to 5 hexes. Since there was no mention of lock on, I'm shocked to hear differently.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 10:58 pm: Edit

edit

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Tuesday, March 07, 2023 - 01:58 pm: Edit

My first thought was along Wayne's post above, Special sensors (G24.161) are the determining rule. I assumed the range 5 limits against ground bases were universal.
But clearly we don't all assume the same thing. Its a little like when I drive down the road. I assume I own the road. Yet there are some people who assume they own the road! Imagine!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, March 09, 2023 - 09:43 am: Edit

D9.45 says (in part), "Cloaking devices ... destroyed during the previous scenario are replaced if the ship has access to a repair facility". In addition, in the otherwise exhaustive Annex #9 Cost to Repair chart, cloaking devices are conspicuously not included. I take this to mean that once the H&R box for a cloaking device is checked, that cloaking device is unrecoverable. A cloaking device can literally not be repaired. It must instead be replaced.

Is this interpretation correct?

Also, assuming this is correct, how does this apply to Orion ships? In theory, each cloaking device in Orion hands must be tracked individually. But, if they can't be repaired, but only replaced, where do Orions get their replacements from? Do they just have such devices laying around for replacement purposes? (D9.45) sure implies they do.

There appears to be a mismatch here. Either there should be a repair cost for repairing cloaking devices, or Orions should not be able to freely get replacements. Obviously, I am missing something, but I can't see what.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, March 09, 2023 - 12:30 pm: Edit

It seems like you're working from an unfounded assumption. Where does it say each cloaking device in Orion hands is tracked individually?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, March 09, 2023 - 02:36 pm: Edit

The rule is (U7.23).

I'm actually understating it because that rule basically says all cloaking devices must be tracked. Fundamentally, every single cloaking device not on its original ship must come from that original ship. There are no "free" cloaking devices. So, for every single Orion cloaking device, there is either a destroyed Romulan ship or a Romulan ship that doesn't have one.

EDIT: Plus, for the Orions, it is just logic: Why would the Orions (either a cartel or an independent) have a cloaking device just lying around? That is a super-valuable property. It should be either sold or in use somewhere. It shouldn't be laying around waiting for another one to be destroyed.

Now, obviously, there would be exceptions. But there should not be enough to make the replacement as painless and automatic as (D9.4) makes it sound. That should only be for Romulans.

By Randy Green (Hollywood750) on Thursday, March 09, 2023 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Where do the Orions notate that they sold one to the GIA? For medicinal purposes? Asking for a friend. ;)

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, March 09, 2023 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Why should it only be for Romulans? There are a lot more pirate vessels out there than the few that show up in scenarios. It sounds fine as a campaign house rule, PF course.

My guess is that it's a balance thing. You paid for the device when you bought the ship. If it's a one shot thing then it should either be cheaper or you're not getting your money's worth in a campaign setting.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, March 09, 2023 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Depends what "destroyed" means. Destroyed as in gone for good or destroyed as in can't be used but still there to be repaired.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, March 09, 2023 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Quote:

Depends what "destroyed" means. Destroyed as in gone for good or destroyed as in can't be used but still there to be repaired.

Well, that's the main part of my question.

Basically, the only way* for a cloaking devices to be destroyed in a battle is through a H&R raid. (Or destroying the whole ship, but that's not applicable here.) On a successful H&R raid, the appropriate box on the SSD is marked and the cloak is destroyed. Can it be repaired or must it be replaced? If it can be repaired, the the rest of my original question doesn't apply and that's the answer. However, the wording of (D9.45) heavily implies a destroyed cloaking device cannot be repaired. Add in the fact that there is no entry for "cloaking device" in Annex #9, there is a very heavy implication that destroyed/damaged/disabled cloaking devices cannot actually be repaired at all. I am asking if I am reading that correctly or not. I want to know.

*Yes, there are other ways for a cloaking device to be destroyed, but they are so rare I am just ignoring them for the purposes of this question and discussion.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, March 10, 2023 - 01:04 am: Edit

My Master Rule Book D9.45, immediately after the part you quoted, goes on to say, "Each counts as 1 weapon repaired."

Most campaign rules don't track "repair costs" but rather total boxes, so it would seem to have "infinite" repair cost so as to not be something that can be done when you're counting turns, but in "out of combat" repair time it's just a box, and considered a weapon box if/when that matters. That would be my interpretation of the rules presented.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, March 10, 2023 - 08:10 am: Edit

Quote:

My Master Rule Book D9.45, immediately after the part you quoted, goes on to say, "Each counts as 1 weapon repaired."

That actually reinforces my perspective. If it was simply repaired, there would be no need to note that the replacement counts as "1 weapon repaired" because it would have been listed earlier in the rule and just been one weapon repaired. If something "counts as something else", then it is, by definition, not that something else.

BTW, you just reminded me of something else that feeds into my interpretation: cloaking devices are lumped together with UIM modules. It is very clear that UIM modules indeed cannot be repaired; they can only be replaced. That is very clear, or it would not be required for ships to run around with more than one UIM. Adding that in reinforces the idea that cloaking devices cannot be repaired and can only be replaced.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, March 10, 2023 - 08:20 am: Edit

Quote:

My guess is that it's a balance thing. You paid for the device when you bought the ship. If it's a one shot thing then it should either be cheaper or you're not getting your money's worth in a campaign setting.

Getting back to this, fair enough, I guess. I am just trying to highlight the incongruity.

Maybe (D9.45) is just for "don't think about it" situations and (U7.23) is for when things are being more detailed. I dunno, it just appears inconsistent.

Or ... maybe cloaking devices can eventually be repaired, but they can't be repaired "in place". So, from the ship's perspective, the cloaking device is replaced, but in the full picture, the destroyed cloaking device is "returned to factory" and rebuilt there, giving one more cloaking device back into the pool implied by (U7.23). Again, I dunno. I am just pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency.

(Which, I again have to point out, is an incredibly rare situation. The number of times a ship will have its cloaking device destroyed while the ship is not destroyed and remains under the control of the original owner is very, very small. Also: make sure your cloaking device has a guard!)

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, March 10, 2023 - 12:04 pm: Edit

There is info in the U.0 campaign section of the rule book that deals with items that are special and restricted in production (ieFed Gatling phasers, SWAC shuttles, SFGs). I remember reading that the Romulans build one cloaking device for each ship built. If they sell one it gets taken away from another ship. That would seem to imply that they can’t just build replacements for those lost in battle, which would mean there would be lots of ships that had no cloaks from battle losses. The history doesn’t support this so I would imagine a cloaking device “destroyed” in battle is still there and can be fixed by some level of damage control procedures.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation