Archive through June 17, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through June 17, 2024
The listed cost for the Tholians to buy an asteroid to use as a web anchor is 25 BPV. I can find no reference that allows asteroids to be purchased in other circumstances than as an anchor.
Question: If another empire wamts to "buy" asteroids and place small ground bases on them, as part of their base defense forces, is that legal? How about for the Tholians buying asteroids for the same purpose, but not using them as anchors for their globular web wedding cake.
Recommendation: For other empires; yes. I can see no reason why the Federation, for example, would be unable from a technical standpoint to tow an asteroid to a critical battle station and then place a phaser-IV, or some other small base, on it.
For the Tholians; I think the answer has to be no, for game balance reasons. A small ground base isn't that hard to kill. So if the Feds (or Klingons or Gorns or whoever) bolster their base defense in this way, the base probably won't last long. If the Tholians create a wedding cake with asteroid-anchored hexagaonal web for the middle web, any ground bases on them are safe until the attacker actually enters the web. But then they probably die quickly. But if the asteroids are not "genuine anchors" and are instead placed in the ring of empty hexes between the inner and middle rings, the bases on those asteroids are safe until the attackers are through the outer ring and enter the middle ring. Thus, unlike the asteroids used by other powers, or Tholian asteroids anchoring the middle web ring, they would get many turns of fire rather than only a few.
For the same reason, perhaps asteroid anchors should be disallowed (or prohibited for handwavium reasons from supporting small bases) for the innermost web ring.
The Tholians had a reason for asteroids around their bases. Other empires do not and have no listing scenarios other than a random rock for supporting asteroid mining. A case could also be made that being unable to anchor webs that the asteroids around a planet simply become available rocks to bombard the planet with ("Coming of the Meteor" scenario).
SPP,
I confess I had not thought about the attacker using asteroids supporting the BATS (or whatever base is being supported) to bombard a nearby planet. But that issue would only apply to some bases. An empire might construct a BATS that wasn't near any inhabited or economically significant locations simply because that was a good spot for the base's sensors to monitor enemy activities; or the location was approptiate for a logistics node, to support multiple other locations in the sector.
Alan Trevor:
The Scenario about the coming of the Meteor establishes that you can guide a meteor into a gravity well to fall on a planet, but by the same token establishes that it is possible to harvest asteroids. But it left much into question. The rock being guided in the case of that scenario may have been convenient (was floating near the planet anyway) and not located in the asteroid belt. (Lord knows we have a few near miss rocks floating by, including closer than the moon's orbit). The Tholians seem to engage in a great deal of effort to collect rocks for an anchors [(SH95.0) I think] which establishes the use some form of their webs to tow the rocks (even though they cannot normally move their webs). And of course there are the Jindarians. The gist right now is that the general capability to "reposition" asteroid for use as additional supporting bases may be more trouble than it is worth except for the Tholians. Where does your proposal end if repositioning rocks is the standard? Does every Starbase have six rocks in the surrounding hexes, and more rocks surrounding those, and even more surrounding those? Those each hex have six rocks in it due to the game scale so there are more? From a simple game point of view this has to be rejected. I am sorry.
Additional note. In the scenario Asteroid Operations (SH95.0) the Rocks being hauled by the Tholians are not large asteroids, and thus could not have bases built on them. Large asteroids take 400 points of damage to destroy (P3.45) and you cannot build bases on smaller asteroids. The asteroids being hauled for potential use as anchors can be destroyed for 100 points. While large asteroids can be used as anchors, this gets one into the discussion of the Tholians just happened to have a large asteroid in a convenient place. (SH95.0) only has rules for a small asteroids.
Quote:The gist right now is that the general capability to "reposition" asteroid for use as additional supporting bases may be more trouble than it is worth except for the Tholians.
Personally, I think it's probably more trouble than it's worth for the Tholians as well. If I were Grand High Poobah Big Cheese of the Tholians, the standard Tholian defense would be globular web, protecting bases with maximum phaser armament and no non-phaser weapons except web generators (which are color-coded as weapons on the colored SSDs). Other deployment schemes might be considered for very rare special cases, but in my opinion they are almost always inferior to the very simple, straightforward, globular wedding cake surrounding a phaser-armed base.
But of course, ultimately, it's not my call.
I actually asked this question in the first place primarily because I wanted to know whether the Feds, Klingons, Hydrans, et al could use this to bolster their defenses. The Tholians don't actually need the help. That's why my suggestion from my 11:59 AM post was "yes" for empires but "no" for Tholians.
You could always build a base in an asteriod field which would reduce or eliminate the need to reposition asteriods.
Douglas,
But would the asteroid field have other effects that might hinder the base's mission? For example, if a base is established in a certain location because it is ideal for surveillance of possible enemy approach paths, might burying the base in an asteroid field limit the range at which the base could detect enemy movements? I'm not sure.
On the other hand, if there were valuable mineral-laden asteroids and an empire wanted to mine them, a BATS might be established as a focal point for supporting forces defending the mining outposts.
Just another 0.02 Quatloos from the peanut gallery, but I would respectfully disagree with the idea of using a BatS in a full fledged asteroid field.
Perhaps I'm off base on this, but I would think that BatS would tend to be used as command locations and as major logistics and communication hubs for whole theaters.
Sure, valuable mineral-laden asteroids are just that, "Valuable," but are better exploited by dedicated mining assets. Again, and this is just my view on things (if we disagree, it's better than 50/50 odds you've got the wiser view on things 
), the folks wanting to exploit the space rocks would most likely utilize the various asteroid mining freighters or, at most, a commercial platform. Those seem to be a far better utilization of resources than a BatS.
I would also worry that the mass-shadow of the asteroids MIGHT reduce the strategic sensory capability of the Special Sensors aboard the BatS, reducing its ability in one of its key functions; the command and communications hub for a sector.
For these reasons, I would suspect that the Tholians would prefer to use Web Anchors, only using rocks on the rare (?) occasion when they just haven't made enough of the specialist devices.
Having reviewed this question (i.e., can you "buy" an asteroid big enough to have a base or bases on it and position it, let alone several of them, around a planet or a base or something else) with SPP, and the answer is "no". You cannot magically invent an asteroid big enough to have a base on it and place it around a location that is, or is not, inside a planetary system. Assuming it would be theoretically possible to find an asteroid of convenient size that just happened to be in the perfect (easy to move) location, it would be an event so rare as to be noteworthy. So the answer is YOU CANNOT DO IT, PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE, DEAD HORSE, DO NOT BRING IT UP AGAIN. ADB could publish a scenario which reflected one of the uber-uber-uber-rare cases, but trust me, you'd be much better off buying some kind of SAM base and parking THAT in the location in question.
LIGHT HEARTED MOOD ENGAGED: Alan Trevor, if you bring this up again I will personally increase the cost of small asteroids around Tholian bases commanded by you to 10,000 BPV per asteroid. Test me, if you feel lucky.
T4 Kzinti CBT is reloading 1+ type-C magazines from cargo.
T4.27 Kzinti CBT loses its last cargo box (the one it was loading from). No magazine has been hit with this fire.
We have a discussion on how FD2.4441 should be read. Given that the cargo box is destroyed but no drone launcher was,
(a) are the drones being loaded this turn into the rack lost or is loading completed?
(b) are any crew killed above or beyond the normal for taking a point of damage?
Follow-on question.
(c) CBT has an MRS. Previously, it had loaded those drones. The rules say that fighter reloads automatically reload from cargo. When do those move and if the cargo box is destroyed on the turn after loading from MRS storage would that reload continue?
With thoughts about the M81 Galaxy's Nebuline faction in mind, I had a few questions about the effect on nebulae on electronic warfare, as well as on Tactical Intelligence.
By my understanding, if two opposing units are inside a nebula, each is "naturally" granted +9 ECM by the terrain itself, to which any other ECM (or ECCM) is added (or subtracted). This has an impact on the degree of Tactical Intelligence that each unit can gather on the other, since each EW shift equals a one-step drop in the Tactical Intelligence level gathered.
Further, if either or both of these units is a scout ship, the "direct" use of these scout channels is blocked; for example, they cannot use scout functions to gather Tactical Intelligence using the "scout" column, the way they can in open space. However, it is noted in (G24.1852) that "indirect" functions apply; say, if there was a third unit sitting outside of a nebula, which can be "lent" ECCM in order to target a unit inside of it, or "lent" ECM in order to defend itself from being targeted by a unit inside the nebula.
-----
So, to clarify:
In the case of (G24.1852) above, does the "lending" unit (ship or base) also have to be outside of the nebula, along with the unit being "lent" to?
Further, if a base is parked in open space just outside of a nebula: can it "lend" itself ECCM in order to target (or gather Tactical Intelligence on) enemy units inside of the nebula?
Indeed, if a scout unit (a base or a ship) outside of a nebula attempts to use one of its sensors to gather Tactical Intelligence under the "scout" column, would this be blocked at the edge of the nebula? As in, any units entering or exiting the nebula would be affected as normal, but not so once inside the nebula itself?
Can a base inside of a nebula "lend" itself ECCM, for the purposes of mitigating the EW shift it would otherwise be firing at (or trying to gather Tactical Intelligence on) an enemy unit which is also inside of a nebula? Or is this function blocked, limiting the base to the amount of "non-scout" ECCM it can self-generate for this purpose?
Alternatively, can a scout unit (a ship or a base) inside a nebula "lend" itself ECM, so as to increase the EW shift an enemy unit would have to fire into (or to try and increase the degradation in Tactical Intelligence gained) - or is that function blocked, limiting the unit to the amount of "non-scout" ECM it can self-generate for this purpose?
-----
And to side-step into a "Questions on Ships" topic: do Seltorian Battlewagons and Assaultwagons count as "ships" or as "bases", for the purposes of self-lending ECCM from their respective special sensors?
Reposting Mike's question and follow up question about the Kzinti CBT D racks.
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
*****************
T4 Kzinti CBT is reloading 1+ type-C magazines from cargo.
T4.27 Kzinti CBT loses its last cargo box (the one it was loading from). No magazine has been hit with this fire.
We have a discussion on how FD2.4441 should be read. Given that the cargo box is destroyed but no drone launcher was,
(a) are the drones being loaded this turn into the rack lost or is loading completed?
(b) are any crew killed above or beyond the normal for taking a point of damage?
Follow-on question.
(c) CBT has an MRS. Previously, it had loaded those drones. The rules say that fighter reloads automatically reload from cargo. When do those move and if the cargo box is destroyed on the turn after loading from MRS storage would that reload continue?
Mke Kenyon asked on Thursday May, 16th:
T#4 a Kzinti CBT is reloading 1+ type-C magazines from cargo.
On T# 4, I#27, the Kzinti CBT loses its last cargo box (the one it was loading from). No magazine has been hit with this fire.
We have a discussion on how FD2.4441 should be read. Given that the cargo box is destroyed but no drone launcher was,
(a) are the drones being loaded this turn into the rack lost or is loading completed?
Answer: Rule (FD444.1) only provides for drones being loaded or unloaded from a system are destroyed along with that system, destroying the cargo box that the drones came from that turn has no effect, at least on this drones. Essentially, you should picture your drone crews moving the drones out of the storage facility and closing the armored door which protects them from the explosion, and then loading the drones into the rack.
(b) are any crew killed above or beyond the normal for taking a point of damage?
Answer: The rule does not provide for increased casualties (see "armored door" above.)
Follow-on question.
(c) CBT has an MRS. Previously, it had loaded those drones. The rules say that fighter reloads automatically reload from cargo. When do those move and if the cargo box is destroyed on the turn after loading from MRS storage would that reload continue?
Answer: assuming you meant all 20 spaces, (FD2.443) says that fighter storage (in this case an MRS) is automatically refilled, so as the drones are loaded on the MRS (which would be lost with the MRS or with the MRS's shuttle box, but until then are he'd safe in the cargo box ( "Armored door, remember?)
Let me add that the loading process also has 'Blow out panels" which channel the explosive force to less threatened areas. Obviously neither of these protects the open shuttle bay which is why you can get chain reaction there. But note that the explosion in the shuttle bay only rarely extends to the reload storage (cargo bays) as a result of the Random hit from the chain reaction.
First of all, thank you for the detailed response SPP!
Clarifying question regarding (c) above ...
Consider a Kzinti CD. Stock, it contains 36 spaces of drones in the racks, 72 more in reloads AND 300 more filling the 6 cargo boxes aboard ship for a total of 408 spaces of drones. Presume for argument 100% of them are filled with Type IV-XM drones.
A CD qualifies for a MRS. The MRS comes with 20 spaces of drones (J8.53). For sake of argument, per (J8.531 and agreement), all 20 spaces are filled with Type I-xM drones.
The CD is not a carrier so (J8.532) does not apply. It's cargo boxes are full, so the drones aren't stored there. Where therefore are the drones? According to (FD2.443), they're in "fighter storage" with the MRS counting as a squadron of one fighter. Fighter storage is completely destroyed with the last shuttle (not fighter) box. Great, so those 20 spaces of drones are there.
Impulse 1.32, the CD fires 6 Type IV-XM drones from it's racks.
Turn 2, the ship wants to reload it's racks. By (FD2.441) the CD can reload it's racks from fighter storage. It uses 12 of the 20 Type I-xM drones to reload the 6 racks. This occurs during the entirety of the turn. If any of those racks are destroyed in this turn, the reload drones are destroyed with the rack being loaded (FD2.4441).
Questions: Per (FD2.443), "... fighter storage is automatically refilled from the drones in cargo boxes (if any)." As the CD has 300 spaces of drones in cargo boxes it sounds like 6 Type IV-XM will be transferred to fighter storage.
(a) is this a choice? On the CD the drones might be "safer" in cargo than in one of two shuttle boxes? Automatically implies it is not.
(b) is the choice of which drones trasfer implicit and proportional or explicit?
(c) When in the round does this occur and how long does it take? Depending on when this transfer occurs this could either save or destroy drones if either the cargo boxes or shuttle boxes on the CD were destroyed in Turn 2.
First, under (J8.531) the 20 drone spaces for the MRS are defined as 2 type-IV (four spaces), 12 type-VI (six spaces), and 10 type-I (10 spaces).
In addition if the MRS has an anti-drone system there are an additional 12 reload ADDs (six spaces).
The drone racks of the ship cannot use the 12 spaces of ADDs/type-VIs (FD3.41), but can use the remaining 14 spaces of drones (type-VI and type-I) (FD3.43).
To reload drone racks, they must be taken out of service normally.
Note that records must be kept of what drones are used (FD1.24).
As to your questions, yes it is a choice, automatically means if you do not interrupt it it occurs. But note there are still drones in the fighter storage because the ships drone racks cannot use the. But note that the MRS might have been loading up on type-I r one type-IV drone.
Records have to be kept so that each turn you will know which drones are where. It is your ship and your responsibility to track your drones.
It takes an entire turn to move the drone from reload to loaded, and if the movement is interrupted by the destruction of the drone rack into which the drone is being loaded (a single two space drone counts as two single space drones and vice versa) the drone is destroyed.
SPP thanks again for the reply, I'm still a little confused on one important point so I'm going to try to reask.
(J8.531) allows "Players to experiment with other combinations." I elected type I vs IV just so we could distinguish between drones being pulled from the MRS vs from Cargo/Rack Reloads in discussion. Sorry if that was confusing it was an attempt to make the situation clearer, not murkier. May have failed there.
In Turn 2, the rack is offline, the racks are being reloaded from fighter storage (FD2.441) which means there's now 12 spaces open in fighter storage. I'm good on the rack.
My lack of understanding is on reloading fighter storage. Rules say those automatically refill but no timing is given on that.
Do 12 spaces of drones move from cargo to fighter storage in Turn 2 (meaning if I lose a cargo box in turn 2 they're "safe")?
Do they move in 0 time on the turn break?
Do they take a turn to move in turn 3?
Need to know as it affects what drones are lost when what damage is taken when. Just trying to make sure I keep the records of what drones are where when accurately.
I wonder when (about) the carronade became a thing? Not the game year - like the actual year. It wasn't a thing when I learned the game. Anyone know?
It was published in Module R10 in 2003.
Thanks Alex
Mike Kenyon:
The drones take a turn (from the Initial Activity Stage before (5) the start of Impulse #1 to the Final Records Stage (6C) after Impulse #32.
"Automatic"means the drones are reloaded IF there is space and it is not required that you need to look at them. But you do have to because fighters usually cannot handle type-IV drones. Your ship might have fighters able to handle such drones, or you want to move some drones from fighter storage to drone storage for the ships racks. Like type-III drones loaded for the MRS (or late war fighters)
Even a normal Kzinti ship may have different drones available and will have records showing those drone loads and when they were used or destroyed in the racks.
SPP: Thanks for the info.
Unrelated question. Can you lend ECM/ECCM to a DefSat?