SPP. Thanks for your answer. My concern was not really with the Andromedans, but with enemies of the Carnivons. In one squadron level game a Fed player was hit with a HN point of damage to a warp engine. Otherwise, he was not hit at all, not even any shield damage. This gave his opponents a 10% of BPV for internal damage for victory points. He thought that was unfair as there is little a anti-Carnivon player can do to stop that, as it goes right through screens. Another gamer brought up the Andros and how the leak rule allows for internals on the Andromedans, but the anti-Andro player apparently doesn't get a victory point for those internals, and thought that maybe analogously the anti-Carnivon player shouldn't get victory points a HN internal hit. In other words, the Andro leak point rule was just stated as an analogy to the Carnivon HN warp engine hit rule. I'm sorry if I didn't state the matter clearly. BTW, we are enjoying trying the Carnivons out.

By Stephen E Parrish (Steveparrish) on Friday, October 18, 2024 - 08:52 pm: Edit

The rule about leak points not counting as victory points for the anti-Andromedan player is stated in D:10.331. The relevant section is this: "Damage caused as a result of 'leaks' does not count for purposes of victory (S2.21) unless the ship is crippled." Again, we were just wondering that since leak points don't count for victory points for the anti-Andromedan if the Carnivons could get the same benefit: that anti-Carnivon players wouldn't get victory points for an HN hit on a warp engine.

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Friday, October 18, 2024 - 10:06 pm: Edit

I know there's a limit on how many ground bases can be placed on an asteroid.

Is there any restriction on how many can be placed on a planet? Or for that matter, on one hex side of a planet?

I was unable to find anything supporting a limit but I may be missing something.

By Stephen E Parrish (Steveparrish) on Friday, October 18, 2024 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Oops, I misstated myself. Which may show how confusing this is. What I should have said is that the Carnivon, not the anti-Carnivon player should not get victory points if all they have is an HN hit on the warp engine of their opponents.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, October 19, 2024 - 09:19 am: Edit

As a reminder, there is another example of a shield-piercing damage weapon out there that is available during the Andromedan War. I speak of course of (FD14.0) spearfish drones. They also have no disclaimer regarding victory conditions (i.e., the internal damage they cause counts for that purpose).

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, October 19, 2024 - 10:54 am: Edit

As I recall, the initial Andromedan leak points are scored as "Hull" hits; only after the target in question has run out of hull is the DAC used.

Hull hits have at times been referred to as a sort of "Seventh Shield"

The Warp hits for a HN do have a material effect on the target ship; it is a point of "Warp" damage. Heck, IIRC, there aren't even any special rules for repairing the damage.

For this reason, were I called on to be a judge on the issue, I would say that it does qualify as internal damage.

HOWEVER, as a disclaimer, as most of you know already, I'm almost always wrong on these sorts of issues...

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Sunday, October 20, 2024 - 05:17 pm: Edit

I know there's a limit on how many ground bases can be placed on an asteroid.

Is there any restriction on how many can be placed on a planet? Or for that matter, on one hex side of a planet?

I was unable to find anything supporting a limit but I may be missing something.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, October 20, 2024 - 07:00 pm: Edit

(P3.4) "Only one small or medium ground base can be placed on any given large asteroid … "

The limit for planets is per hexside, which hasn't (yet) been defined. Still, if limited to say 10 (small/medium) per hexside, that's still up to 60 bases for EAFs and whatever details (reserve power, batteries, etc) must be remembered during the turn [and don't forget the defsat(s), minefield(s), and the defending fleet).

Large bases (normally in orbit) could also be planted on planets.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, October 20, 2024 - 07:54 pm: Edit

It's a planet. Planets are extremely large.

There is a limit on how many can be linked together to share power, and I don't remember what that limit is. But I doubt there is any limit to the total number of bases per hexside of a planet outside what can be purchased.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, October 21, 2024 - 12:15 am: Edit

I'm about 90% sure that no more than four small ground bases can be linked in a single power grid. However, I don't think there are any limitations on how many power grids there can be on any one hex side.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 21, 2024 - 05:22 pm: Edit

I am sorry, but as I said before, you win by destroying your opponent. A carnivon who inflicts Heel Nipper damage on six Federation cruisers and then withdraws does not destroy the battle station they were defending, or wreck the convoy. Conversely, it does not prevent the destruction to the base the Carnivon were defending or save the convoy from being wrecked. The Federation (or Klingons or whoever) are going to have to take their lumps and win the battle by killing Carnivons.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Monday, October 21, 2024 - 11:11 pm: Edit

SPP...I think the question from Steve Parrish is does the single warp engine hit from a HN count as a 10% VP tally similarly to having blown through an opponent's shield and scoring 30 internal? Or, is it NOT treated as internal for VP calculation similarly to how an Andro leak point is handled?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, October 22, 2024 - 09:39 am: Edit

Dennis: SFB is an "enabling rule required" game; lacking said enabling rule, a thing does not happen.

The default rule for the standard victory conditions is that scoring any internal damage counts for purposes of victory conditions (S2.21). There is a specific enabling rule regarding Andromedan panel leak that provides an exemption (D10.33); thus, they're exempted.

There is no such enabling rule with regard to Heel Nipper damage to warp engines (YE24.31), to internal damage from spearfish drones (FD14.21), or to any other source of "ignores the shield" damage. As such, there is no exemption regarding those damage sources from the internal-damage provision of the standard victory conditions.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Should there be?

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Jessica agreed.....but as SVC stated, should there be is the real question. I think it should be considered given the possibilities for VP mischief, vis-a-vis the HN. With the spearfish drone, I never considered that an issue due to the unlikely chances drones face in striking their targets AND some drones have massive warheads. I see no problem awarding some points for hitting a target with drones, but say a frigate with a HN hits a BB, then I would house rule no VP scored for internal. But, that is just me.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 - 04:52 pm: Edit

A heel nipper has a max range of eight hexes and a 1/6th chance of scoring a hit at that range. if you close I to range zero you have a 1/6th chance of still missing. If your target cannot deal with the problem, then he should not be fighting your force.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 - 07:44 pm: Edit

If we're moving into the question of whether or not the rules should be changed to grant said exemption: for my money, no, neither Heel Nipper damage to warp engines nor Spearfish drone penetration damage should be exempted from the default standard victory conditions rules.

Long story short, Andromedan PA panel leak is so ubiquitous, so much an expected factor (given that it is going to happen whenever a large volley of damage is incurred, and doubly so when said volley is inflicted by disruptor bolts), that it would be vanishingly rare for said leak to *not* be suffered in an engagement, and all but impossible to prevent. It is simply part of PA panel design, and without an exemption, Andromedans would be at a disadvantage with regard to this particular aspect of the victory conditions; as such, the PA panel leak exemption from the "scoring any internal damage" category of the victory conditions is reasonable.

The same cannot be said of either Heel Nipper warp hits or Spearfish drone penetrating damage; they are relatively uncommon and readily avoidable. As such, neither seems to warrant an exemption.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Wednesday, October 23, 2024 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Jessica your points are well taken and valid, but here is where I personally start to differ a bit. I ask myself how easy it is to make a decision about the use of a weapon in a tactically invalid way simply to gain VP. I see the potential for abuse in this manner as high with a HN. VP should be awarded for good tactical decision making and play, as well as for dealing damage to your opponent's ability to win the game. Someone could easily decide to not fire at an imminent threat to which internal has been dealt, and if the game is about to be called for time, decide to fire on a perfectly healthy, larger ship, with full shields just for the VP and win the game even though they are actually losing. This is just one example and I am pretty sure if Carnivons were used in tournaments alot the HN would have to get a second look. That's all and that's why, since we have been playing them alot lately we are slightly on the side of the fence on which house-ruling a change is likely the way we will go. Another example of "gaming" the HN would be, if at close range, choosing to fire at a ship not because you actually care about the tactical effect of turning the opponent, but because the ship is a DN and you want the VP. The easier it is, with the use of a weapon, to diverge from using it in a way that makes tactical sense, is an indicator that it may be slightly broken, IMO. Again, we could go on forever, but our group is leaning toward house-ruling this one, under certain situations. An argument can certainly be made for either side of this, I think. My group are tactical junkies. and love chewing on things like this, however pedantic it may seem. :-)

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, October 24, 2024 - 12:41 am: Edit

If you can get a HN close enough to a Lion, or C8/9 to get internals, you've earned the Victory Points.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, October 24, 2024 - 10:58 am: Edit

David Merritt nails it in one.

By Michael F Guntly (Ares) on Thursday, October 24, 2024 - 11:50 am: Edit

I agree with Adm.
I considered the following.

Assumption 1: This is a patrol scenario. If it were a campaign scenario, VP would not matter.
Assumption 2: BPV are approximately equal, or the players would not have sat down to play.
Assumption 3: Carnivon have 4 CA @ 140 (Total 560); opponent has 1 DN @ 250 + 3 DD @ 100 (Total 550).

(Caveat - these ships may not actually exist and the ships specified may violate deployment rules for a patrol scenario, but they will do for now for analysis)

While HN may ping all 4 enemy ships (10% for internals = 55 VP), Carnivons cannot then disengage as they would give up too many VP (25% IIRC). And in acquiring the 55 VP I would expect the enemy to concentrate fire to either cripple 1 CA (50% for crippling = 70 VP) or damage it enough to cripple it later.

As such, I don’t see HN damage to be any unbalanced source of VP.

(Caveat - I have not opened a rulebook in over 15 years; I have never played, nor seen, a Carnivon ship or their weapons. So some of the analysis might need to be adjusted by those who are more knowledgeable.)

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, October 24, 2024 - 07:41 pm: Edit

I have played and play with a few friends. Patrol Type battles. Pick a BPV buy your force and have at it. Captains' options are bought after and not part of the BPV agreed on. Any captains' options you buy go to the other player as Victory points.

I have the Carnivons. The heel nipper is a short-range weapon. Best used in combination of launched death bolts. I have only played against them a couple of times and never as them.

I have played vs Klingons and Kzinti. With all kinds of drones to include spear fish. I have never had a Klingon are Kzinti get a lucky hit with a spearfish drone and no one else has taken any real damage. Turn and run to disengage for a cheesy win.

With even BPV totals the amount you will get for that internal damage is not going to offset the disengagement points. You notice 10% for internal damage, 25% for disengagement. It might push you over after a lot of other things happen in the battle but not at all by itself.

So no need for a rule addendum for Heel nippers nope.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Thursday, October 24, 2024 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Nah, I see no real need for an addendum either since we were just looking for a rules clarification/confirmation in the first place. We will house-rule in our own games accordingly as the situation warrants.

By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Friday, October 25, 2024 - 11:19 am: Edit

Full agreement here, no addendum needed.
A ship close enough to do HN damage and get out of range without sustaining any damage has shown tactical superiority, even if it was a lucky shot, because he took the shot and it hit. That is worth 10% VP IMHO.

By Stephen G. Parry (Mutant) on Saturday, October 26, 2024 - 03:44 pm: Edit

I have a query regarding X-Ships. Please can you clarify: XE1.25 states "fast-loaded heavy weapons are limited to a range of fifteen (even if held to a later turn)"

But XE10.2, XE11.21, XE21.61. all state "If fired on the turn that it was fast-loaded (i.e., if not held to a later turn), range is limited to fifteen hexes"

Which is correct please?

Thanks