Archive through August 23, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through August 23, 2024
There is nothing in the rules which says a mine, or a DefSat, can be lent EW, whether the mine , or DefSat, is controlled or on automatic setting, whether the controlling unit is a planet or a base.
It should be noted that you ca simulate lending defeats EW by lending the attacker Offensive ECM, but that is a general kind of ECM affecting all fire by the unit you have lent to.
There is provisions to lend ECCM to mines a base. If a DEFSAT is controlled, it is treated as a command mine. I assume the base controlling the DEFSAT can lend ECCM under these rules.
(M4.44) ELECTRONIC WARFARE: Captor mines have three points of built-in ECCM (D6.3142). A base can lend ECCM to a specific captor mine or sensor mine under its control as it would to any other unit (G24.21); captors do not have the ECCM of the controlling base as a seeking weapon would. See, however, (M4.57) if a sensor mine is controlling the captor. ECM cannot be lent to mines. ECCM cannot be lent to mines other than controlled-captor mines. Offensive EW (G24.219) cannot be lent to mines, but could be used to affect minesweepers (M8.13).
(R1.15D) If there is a player to control the defense satellites, they are treated as command mines. If not (i.e., in a solitaire scenario), the following rules will apply.
Mike Kenyon: The above by David Hanson shows that I failed to check the rules, other than (R1.15) when answering your question. David Hanson is correct.
I have two questions on the security skiff (R1.53)
The unnumbered paragraph above rule (R1.52) states that skiffs and couriers are fully under the interceptor rules given in (K3). (K3) says that the rules in (K1) are in full effect, except where changed in (K3). Given that assumption, looking at the SSD on page 7 of the R8 SSD book, there are two things that don't make a whole lot of sense to me.
First, (K1) and (K3) are very clear that drone racks on PFs and Interceptors do not have reloads. Yet the drone racks on the security skiff have reloads. This is a pretty notable conflict. I mean, it makes sense, as the security skiff doesn't have a PFT to reload it, but it does have a nearby base to do so. So, I understand the exception, but it should be noted as an exception.
Second, the Ph-2 table on the SSD clearly shows that the Ph-2s on the security skiff have a range of 50 hexes. However, K1 is very clear that all phasers weapons on a PF/interceptor class ship should be capped to a 15 hex range. Unlike the drone issue, this seems like an outright mistake. So, is it a mistake or another exception?
Some years back I pointed out that K5.0 does not specify how damage is applied to skiffs (of various types) or workboats. ADB posted some updated charts here on the BBS but I am not sure if they were ever published anywhere.
(K3) already covers damage to skiffs and couriers. I forget the exact rule, but interceptors take damage as the defender decides. Since skiffs and couriers use interceptor rules, they simple take damage as the defender decides. It's not explicitly stated, but it is there when you default to interceptor rules.
My question is not because something is not explicitly stated. My question is because it is an outright contradiction with no enabling rule for the exception. (Which, I want to note, could be there and I just haven't found.)
Quick update. I confused something. I misread the wrong rule and let it conflate with the FC PF damage rule. I apologize for the mistake.
Interceptors take damage like PFs. Therefore skiffs and couriers take damage like PFs, using the same damage allocation chart. Again, I apologize for the misstatement. I would delete my prior message if I could. Instead, I simply must metaphorically fall on my sword.
I am unaware of any errata to change things, but since the SSD shows the Ph-2 having the full, 50 hex range, methinks it's perfectly good to declare the Security Skiff is armed with Phaser-2s that have a 50 hex range.
(Mind you, with them only doing one point of damage, and even that happens less often than not, why shoot them in 99% or better of situations? 
)
SSD also shows reloads for the Drone Racks, PLUS it has the statement "DRONE RACK IS TYPE-A WITH ONE RELOAD. SOME SHIPS LATER HAD TYPE-B OR TYPE-G DRONE RACKS, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY"
Given that statement, Security Skiffs appear to be able to reload their racks.
Ship Data Table on the SSD does show SHIELD COST = 0 and LIFE SUPPORT = 0, so presumably Housekeeping is inexpensive.
IF I were to hazard a guess, the reference to Interceptors is based on the shields; the two with FH and RH coverage is the same as Interceptors.
Again, that is just a guess, and seeing as how I'm usually wrong about things, please take it for what (little) it's worth.
Skiffs just use off the rack ship type components. Hence range 50 P2. Int & PF use purpose built cheaper components that have a shorter lifespan.
Question re Death Bolt bursting.
2 DB with burst at R2 programmed is targetting ship A and they get to R2.
Just before fire, ship B and ship C tractor the 2 DBs.
Does fire restrictions kick in now due to the tractor link or do the 2 DBs still take their shot at ship A despite the tractor link ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
Regarding the Mike's Security Skiff question... I would really love to see an official answer to Mike West's query on the PH-2s. And for that matter, wouldn't mind seeing a formal notation (here) or wherever it may be printed, explaining whether the Drone reloads are an oversight as printed on the SSD or are in fact full sized ship mounted racks (with reloads).
---------------------
In the meantime, I have another question.
(G12.543) Stabilized detached rear hulls can move under impulse power (maximum speed of 1 hex per turn).
G12.543 doesn't state whether or not the stabilized rear hull can move under warp, but the mention of ..."impulse power (maximum speed of 1 hex per turn)" seems to imply it cannot.
Which is true?
And (under its own power), can it ever?
Or is the rear hull then assumed to limp away on impulse or be towed somewhere by a Salvage tug or something? The OK6 and TK5 certainly mean the rear hulls got somewhere, somehow.
"got somewhere?"
Umm, they were sitting in space waiting to die after the Boom detached and the demolition charges failed to activate. When a friendly Orion or Tholian pulled up and called "You want a tug? We will drop you guys off in a survival pod if you let us have the hull as is with damaging it further..."
Dropped off inside the Wyn Cluster, on a random Neutral Zone planet without an ESS/ ISS presence, inside the Orion province, or to a Fed Ship for internment...
Do remember that a ship with only Impulse Engines (even if just one working box left) can move at "Non-Tactical Warp" speed in a non-combat environment. There has to be a technobabble (TB) reason why this mode cannot be used in combat, but nobody explained the babble-science (BS) to me.
Non-Tactical Warp is not in the SFB game rulebook specifically, but SVC long ago stated that this is background info. How else can separated booms / saucers make it home? How else can the Romulans control their space empire with non-Warp ships?
Garth L. Getgen
Were we chatting about this over some cold ones, I'd play "Devil's Advocate" and bring up some "Out-of-Game" thoughts.
WOULD the Klingons want for subjects who may take over a rear hull with a mutiny to be able to fly that section... ANYwhere? I'd think not. For that reason, I'd suspect that the software that might be available for rear hull control stations would NOT be able to get the ship into non-tactical warp.
Also, if I remember correctly, in the fiction story "Return of the Hood," the saucer section was flying at non-tactical warp under impulse power at the start of the story.
That is, of course, a BIIIIGG "If," as seeing as how I'm often wrong...
In th e Return of the Hood I think they mentioned that the Chief Engineer is either a Mad Genius or possibly a Legend done was cooking those engines for all they were worth.
As far as the mutinous crew regain control of the derelict rear hull even the Penal Ships have Aux Control and a Security Station in the Rear. If the Suicide Charges do not go off given enough time the crew could probably get it limping towards hopefully the closest planet.
If there were ethnic Klingon officers aboard the detached rear hull and they were able to regain control of the rear hull, then they could fly the rear hull in NTW. But the non-Klingon crew members couldn't because they would not have the security clearances to operate the computers nor the training to fly the hull.
The in-universe details surrounding the difference between Non-Tactical Warp and Tactical Warp have been expanded upon in numerous ADB publications, to include in both Captain's Log #29 and in SFB Module R4J, as well as in this file from GURPS Prime Directive.
Ships moving at "cruise" speeds under their own navigation - in other words, using what Federation and Empire refers to as operational movement - vary depending on the type of engine involved.
A ship limited to NTW, such as a pre-Smarba Romulan Warbird, can "cruise" at just over nine parsecs a day. In principle, this would translate to three hexes of operational movement on the F&E hex map in the course of a six-month game turn, though this has yet to be formally spelled out in that game system.
On a side note, the more "primitive" iteration of impulse power used on the exodus from Vulcan to Romulus (as outlined in Prime Directive Romulans) was much slower than this; it took the exiles several decades to make the trip back then.
However, a "modern" (GPD Tech Level 12) ship, like a Federation CA or a Klingon D7, can "cruise" at a speed of just under 19 parsecs a day. Which, in F&E terms, translates to six hexes per turn of operational movement.
It's worth noting that NTW still involves a degree of "space warping" in combat; this is why a ship can move at a high fraction of c without facing serious time dilation effects. However, the warp field is too fragile to sustain itself in combat beyond this - hence the SFB speed limit of one hex per turn.
But then, even for ships with TW drives, it's necessary to drop to "tactical" speeds - as in, to go no faster than SFB Speed 31, in the case of "modern" ships - before reaching an enemy unit's maximum weapons range.
-----
As for the specifics under (G12.5), I would read the rules as stating that only impulse engines can be used for movement - though the warp engines can still be used to generate power under (G12.52).
So, while most Federation secondary hulls cannot move under their own power once the saucer is separated, Klingon secondary hulls with at least one functional impulse engine box can move under impulse power, once the process of stabilization is complete - unless there is a successful mutiny, in which case it cannot move as per (G6.32).
Or rather, as noted in the previous post, the mutineers themselves cannot control the movement of the secondary hull, though a capturing empire can send over a skeleton crew under (G6.51) to do this.
Although, one question might be to ask if the mutineers know enough to "stabilize" the secondary hull by themselves, or if this only begins to happen once the skeleton crew is sent over to direct the stabilization...
-----
Another point of comparison is with Neo-Tholian ships. Those were designed from the keel up to operate as two warp-capable hull sections once separated, under (G12.9) - and for these sections to re-combine if so required.
By and large, the Federation and Klingons do not follow this design principle: their ships are intended to be operated as "complete" units whenever possible. Hence the inability of their detached secondary hulls to move under warp power.
Which might also explain why the Holdfast Tholians had to create the TK5 by hard-welding the front of a patrol corvette to the captured F5 secondary hull; they most likely could not install the docking mechanism required to use a light command module and still be able to generate a stable (tactical) warp field.
Is it just coincidence that PI-cubed == 31.00627668, or ever so slightly more than the max combat speed in SFB/FedCmdr, right at the limit before the ship jumps to "high warp" where speed is much more than Warp-factor cubed time light=speed?? Coincidence??
Garth L. Getgen
Yes. It's just coincidence.
According to "(XR2.0) PARTIAL X-REFITS: SHIP SYSTEMS"
(XR2.1) SHIELDS: The number of shield boxes does not increase, nor do they have larger minimum shields. For a cost, however, the ship gains the following benefits:
(XR2.11) Faster repair of shields (XD9.21) is possible.
(XR2.12) XP shields “leak” normally and do not use (XD3.61). They are X-shields for (XFD14.1).
(XR2.13) XP-ships do not have the critical hit benefit (XD8.1).
(XR2.14) XP-ships do not gain the (XD21.56) catastrophic damage benefit.
(XR2.15) The cost for all of these benefits (as a package) is two points on a size class 4 unit or size class 5 base, four points on a size class 3 unit, and six points on a size class 2 or size class 1 unit.
The only two things I see as a benefit for XP Shield refits is the two repair benefits. Why were the other entries even listed? Wouldn't the entire section have made more sense to simply state that XP Shield refits provide ONLY (XD9.21) and (XFD14.1)?
Good question, Rusman. While I can't OFFICIALLY speak for ADB, Inc., I do know from personal experience that there are folks who might think that the other benefits might apply.
With such a rich game engine, there are dozens of rules interactions with scores of potential questions that Our Hosts have tried to answer ahead of time. This appears to be one of those times.
At least, that's my best guess.
They are just trying to be explicit.
While the sane way to read the rules is "if there is no rule enabling it, then it doesn't work". However, there are too many players who go by "if there is no rule preventing it, I can do it". So, ADB has to be explicit on what does and does NOT happen.
Wasn't sure wheter to put this here or in ships (or GC for that matter): Doing up master ship lists for Galactic Conquest, tackling the HDWs (never played with them before now), and got to wondering how they're costed. Reading it, the listed BPV includes 4 APR and no OPT or NWO. G33.1 and G33.3 make sense to me in terms of costs. It's G33.2 (APR*/AWR*) that confuses me...
G33.23 says that there's no cost for swapping out the APR/AWR for any of the allowable options. But, if converted to shuttle, a fighter ready rack costs extra ("...additional cost provided in Annex #8H.") which I'm guessing is 1, given shuttle bay w/ Admin =3, and shuttle bay w/ ready rack + Admin = 4. What muddles me more, is that Annex #8H lists APR/AWR costing 3/4, and Batteries costing 2. So, if I wanted to make a carrier (+10 fighter) configuration, it would cost 6*2 (2 OPT + 4 NWO shuttle bay w/ ready rack) + 4*0 (4 APR/AWR to shuttle bay) + 4*1 (4 ready racks for APR/AWR-shuttle bay) = 16. If there's no cost for swapping out APR/AWR, then why do they have a cost listed in Annex #8H? My brain interpets this as 'If you swap out the APR for Cargo, do you (or you should) get a 2 pt per box rebate?' Or 'G33.23 says swapping out for an allowable system is no cost, so why would the cost increase for a shuttle bay with a ready rack?'
[I scoured the BBS, couldn't find an answer. I did try.]
Tev, short answer, no rebates!
If the option you're swapping in costs less than what's being swapped out, no cost. If reversed, increase the cost by the difference.
As for Annex #8H, that's the cost for adding the system to an 'NWO' box.