Archive through September 16, 2023
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through September 16, 2023
Thank you Nick. I think that is the rule I needed to understand rolling plasma torpedoes. I also think this here is a rule that a lot of plasma players must not know. I have never had a player announce when they stop charging an F torp because they think they might lose it. That has had to have happened a bunch of times.
Yeah, the key is the discharge of a warhead, completed or not.
Heel Nipper damage question:
A heel nipper that hits causes one point of damage to the target engine declared when firing.
Consider a ship getting hit with a regular direct-fire volley and a heel nipper in the same impulse.
Does the one point of damage -
a) happen last, meaning that the one point of damage is lost if all the boxes of that engine are knocked out by the regular internal volley (but still causes the turn and lost movement)?
b) happen first, meaning there is now one less box on that engine to be damaged by the internal rolls?
(YE24.22) does state that the effect is resolved 'immediately', but that's really within the overall context of segment 6D (as opposed to seeking weapons), and I don't consider that great guidance for this wrinkle.
A question came up in our campaign battle today with Frank:
Can a fighter using erratic manuvers land under its own power on a carrier not using EM without help from a tractor providing the fighter is moving faster than the carrier?
There seems to be lots in C10.52 about docking with or landing on a ship doing EM but not about landing a fighter doing EM. J1.61 doesn't say anything about EM
James Lowry:
The rule honestly provides no guidance. It was intended that it was (damage from a heel nipper) resolved with all other damage in step 6D234, but obviously not preceding hellebore or PPD damage. In reading the rule, the Heel Nipper must score its warp damage point between the Vudar ion pulse generator and Ion storm generator and before all other direct-fire weapons. Note this is after the PPD step and first hellbore firing option.
David Jannke:
I cannot find a solid reference, but based on (J1.26) which allows a shuttle to begin erratic maneuvers on the "instant" of launch I have to say a fighter (or any other warp powered shuttle) can cancel erratic maneuvers on the "instant" of landing.
Not important; purely a question to satisfy my curiosity.
The rules for Nimble units say that Nimble status is lost if/when towing something via tractor beam (sensible) or for Gunboats using towbars to tow another Gunboat or being towed by another Gunboat.
I was wondering about a nimble unit (most are smaller ships) that was outfitted as a Casual Gunboat Tender. If it has its Gunboat attached, does the added mass cause it to lose its Nimble status? I couldn't find anything in the rules one way or the other on the subject and am curious.
Again, it's idle curiosity, nothing more. 
Jeff Anderson:
Barring any specific rule that says otherwise, a G2 (Nimble Klingon ship) with a G1 (Klingon PF) on a mech-link is still nimble.
Re: Heel Nipper Damage
Hmm.
My impression is that the various steps in 6D2 generally exist to sort out various shield damage effects and on small, unshielded targets, and since the heel nippers don't damage shields, nor anything without actual internals, there shouldn't be a problem with them being part of the general Direct-Fire step there.
Instead, 6D4 is where all the internal damage gets resolved, so I figured the timing matter was purely in there ("Allocate all the internal damage from..."). Though either way, this is sounding like the heel nipper's internal happens before all the randomly rolled ones.
While (sort of) happy with that answer (which was also my guess), SPP, there is that (VERY annoying) part of me that would love to throw down a few cold ones in a friendly debate comparing a Tholian DD with a Cargo Pack attached to a Tholian DD with Mech Links on both tractors, hauling a pair of Cargo Gunboats.
Yeah. That's why that part of me is SO annoying...
Apologies for being annoying yet again, but for the past couple days, I've been toying with some thoughts regarding Tachyon Missiles (OFD1.0).
Thought one: a potential misinterpretation of the rules regarding propulsion upgrades for Tachyon missiles. My interpretation of rules (OFD1.233) and (OFD1.234) is that an Enlarged Missile (OFD1.222) that's been upgraded to propulsion-32 would have only six size points available for improvements AND if it used all six points, it would have a speed of 26.
Is this interpretation correct?
The other main thought is with regards to the identification rules (OFD1.34). With regards to the frame used above, if I have two different Tachyon Missiles, both of which have...
... One size point of Negative Tractor and
... Two size points of ECM for four points of defensive ECM
BUT one Tachyon Missile has its other three size points in Armor (for a total of fourteen armor but a warhead strength of eight) while the other Tachyon Missile has its other three size points in additional warhead (so it only has an armor of eight but a warhead of twenty).
The rules for Identification (OFD1.34) have been unclear to me. Yes, I recognize that both Tachyon Missiles would be clearly identified as being Enlarged Missiles with two points negative tractor, four points of ECM, possessing the improved propulsion, and having six "Other" size points used, BUT would the OpFor be able to identify that one was a super armored brick and the other was less rugged but more dangerous?
(If the opposition isn't able to tell one from the other, it does suggest a tactic to me )
Thank you in advance
Apologies to all for this additional annoyance, but, Jeff, should a question on Tachyon Missiles be listed in the Omega topic?
Question re General Reinforcements
A ship drops a shield to send BPs onto an enemy ship.
That same impulse, the enemy fires on the dropped shield.
Can the receiving ship then use general reinforcement to offset some of the damage?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
Frank
I think it is possible, SOP, fire is after transporter.
I think the relevant rules are:
"(G8.23) GENERAL REINFORCEMENT: General shield reinforcement will block the use of transporters, even through shields that are voluntarily dropped or destroyed by damage."
The following paragraph talks about blocking someone attempt to beam aboard one's ships rather than outgoing Boarding Parties. I assume it works both ways.
If it does go both ways then you need to drop General Reinforcement as well as the shield, which can be done with the same delay.
"(D3.55) REINFORCEMENT: A ship can drop its general or specific reinforcement.
(D3.553) Dropping and raising of reinforcement is subject to the delays of (D3.51) and (D3.54)"
Note: This is not meant to answer the question as this question was generated after we looked at this rule and had different interpretations.
Wayne,
I agree but D3.553 may say differently.
It seems when a shield is dropped, any general reinforcement is also dropped for 8 imps.
Therefore, a dropped specific shield [and any specific reinforcement to that shield] is down for 8 imps and any general reinforcement [which can be applied to any shield] is also dropped for 8 imps
SPP, is this correct?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
The dropping of general reinforcement is covered by (D3.552). It is separate from the dropping of specific shields.(D3.551) ties just specific reinforcement to a given shield. (D3.553) merely subjects the dropping and raising of reinforcement to the same delays as shields.
In the situation described, it will depend on if the transporting ship already had general reinforcement operating or not.
If it did (by allocating for it during EA), then by (G8.23) it would have to drop it to perform the transporter action, so it would not be available to absorb damage from the return fire - and the (D3.51) quarter-turn delay means it can’t use (H7.344) to provide reinforcement against that fire (it could use the batteries to increase the general reinforcement for when it is able to be raised again).
If it did not already have general reinforcement operating, and thus no need to drop it to perform the transporter operation, then it can use (H7.344) to provide general reinforcement via reserve power.
Alex,
Yep, I had 4 points in general reinforcements[blocking 2 points] allocated.
I wanted to use the 4 bttys as well to block 2 more points of the incoming 11 thus reducing it to 7 points damage.
From what you are saying, I am understanding the allocated general cannot be used but I could use my 4 bttys as general?
From what I am understanding, when a shield is dropped, any general reinforcement allocated is also dropped for 8 imps but bttys could be used as general if need be.
Thanks.
Frank
The batteries cannot be used to provide undropped general reinforcement during the (D5.1) delay in the described case.
You would have had to drop the general reinforcement to make the transporter action, which means you have to wait 8 impulses before you can raise general reinforcement. So you would take all 11 damage.
Thanks Alex.
That is how we played it, I took all 11 internals.
Cheers
Frank
Fank Lemay: That is not a question that has, to my knowledge, ever come up before. So, on impulse #4 (random impulse for purposes of responding) you have a 24 box #2 shield. You do NOT have any reinforcement on the shield. You choose during step (6B7) to drop the shield to send boarding parties to a location (what it is is not relevant to the question) during (6D2) of the same Impulse (or within eight Impulses of that Impulse) the enemy fires on your dropped shield (it can be later it you never raised the shield for some reason). You cannot raise the shield in response to this fire because shields are raised or lowered in (6B7) of the impulse. However, the shields are powered (D3.34) and as such you CAN use General shield reinforcement to block some of the damage. Note that in your question the ship was not using General Shield reinforcement when it lowered its shield to move boarding parties.
SPP,
I had general reinforcement allocated in my EA but no specific reinforcement to the shield I dropped.
Question is when a shield is dropped, is the general reinforcement also dropped for 8 imps or can general reinforcement be used at any time?
Also, if General is dropped for 8 imps, can bttys be used for general reinforcements since they were not allocated in EA?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
Many thanks for the erratics on landing fighters ruling SPP.
In another battle I'm running a base and just wanted to find out if (R1.1G1) Repair Limitations refers to repairs under (D9.7) Continuous Damage Repair which it seems to match or if it is a campaign repair concern, a general description of repairs to the base or a specific disregard of a limitation of G17.2 Repair Points that I'm not seeing.
The first part of R1.1G1 reads: (R1.1G1) Repair Limitations: Bases, as supply points, have an unlimited self-repair capability and can use their full Damage Control Rating for repairs to themselves every turn.
The remainder describes how the ability can be lost from taking damage.
One other interpretation for R1.1G1 has been suggested: Bases get Damage Control Rating points of free damage control applied to shields without paying the power for that.
Not sure why that would be the case because you have good supply but it is a possibility.
On the general reinforcement/transport situation I see two possible scenarios which may have different answers.
Scenario One: Ship A plots power to general shield reinforcement in EA. Ship A then lowers a shield in impulse 4 to transport BP to an enemy ship. G8.23 says general reinforcement prevents transport so Ship A would also have to drop the general shield reinforcement per D3.55 in order to be able to transport and the reinforcement will be down for 8 impulse. Ship B fires at ship A in impulse 4. No general reinforcement may be applied because it is down.
Is Scenario one correct?
Scenario Two: Ship A does not have any plotted power to General reinforcement in EA. In impulse 4, he drops his shield to transport BP's to an enemy ship. Since he has no power to general reinforcement he does not have to drop the general reinforcement. Ship B fires at ship A in the fire step of impulse 4. Ship A may apply batteries reserve power to general reinforcement to reduce some damage going through the down shield.
Is scenario two correct?
One important thing keep in mind is that “downed” and “dropped” are specifically different conditions for shields in the rules.