That was the way I looked at it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Doing a HEB under cloak should carry a clear and unambiguous penalty.

Voiding the cloak is such a penalty.

It's also a very KISSable penalty. You don't suddenly stop the game to run cloak lock-on rolls because of the speed change.

Especially since you're going to do two sets of rolls. Conditions are absolutely going to change again next impulse so everyone will roll again.

Once is enough.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Well, as a plasma player, I don't like the HEB idea. I admit, it got me thinking of the tactical uses of an HEB.

1. Run away from seeking weapons.
2. Catch up to your opponent after he fires his weapons for a close range shot.
3. Jumping across a minefield.

I would be absolutely opposed to X2 drones having this ability. I would argue that X2 drones do not have the extra warp power needed to do an HEB. (Besides, if HEB is allowed, wouldn't the "AI" say I'm four hexes away, therefore I HEB and impact the target! Nasty. Besides, what about HEB plasmas?)

However, as an Andro player I can appreciate the HEB. Some recommendations.

1. You must move forward in a straight line.
2. There be a limit on the number of hexes per HEB. (6 hexes seems like a nice number to me. We could use 12 as the maximum, like the Ando.)
3. HEB be allocated movement only. Reserve Warp is not allowed.
4. The HEB breakdown counter is the same as but separate from the HET breakdown counter.
5. The HEB breakdown effects, well, here things can get interesting.
5A. Use the same HET breakdown effects.
5B. The energy is spent, lower the HEB breakdown counter (be sure to smile!).
5C. Same as 5B, with fire control disrupted for four impules.
5D. Same as 5C, with the allocated warp unavailable for next turn.
5E. Same as 5D, but ask are we playing HEB tumbling? The roll was 1, the ship moves in a random direction, and the facing is randomly determined.
6. You can escape a tractor beam with HEB. (Fighters can do it!)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 05:04 pm: Edit

John,

HEBing across a minefield is the LAST mistake a ship would make. Unlike the Dis-Dev, the ship does pass through the intervening hexes and it would undoubtably rack up a number of mine detonations as it did.

The other two usages you state are valid.

I belive the proposed limit is 3 hexes for a HEB. I would oppose more.

The Andros have the Dis-Dev. They don't need a HEB. They are almost overbalanced in their ability to maneuver as it is. A 12-hex Dis-Dev + 6-hex HEB is way too obnoxious.

Also,
I personally oppose X1 tech for Andros. Andro tech IMHO IS X1 as-is. At least. I would personally oppose X2 Andros.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 05:36 pm: Edit

“Allocate warp movement power to peform a HET (applies to whole turn regardless of number of HEBs), then add warp movement power equal to twice the number of hexes of movement desired (up to the ship's Size Class+1).”
“If the ship was scheduled to move under regular movement during a HEB impulse, it's regular Impulse Chart movement will occur before the HEB movement is applied.”

If I am reading this correctly you are saying a Destroyer may move 6 hexes on a given impulse. Even the revised 3 hexes is too much.

“HEBs are restricted to impulses where X2 ships can normally change speed (thanks Kenneth Jones).”

Presumably X2 ships will speed change like X1 ships, once every 6 impulses.

“The X2-ship then goes into post-HEB (e.g. post-HET) ‘cool off’ period (four impulses) before next HEB could be performed.”

And can move 5 additional hexes 5 times/turn plus move speed 31 for a grand total of 31+5*5 = 56 hexes in a turn.

“A ship's turn mode is not reset after HEB but a ship benefits from only one hex of movement on any HEB impulse. A ship may not turn during the impulse of HEB. A ship may sideslip if it's sideslip mode is fulfilled but only on the last hex of HEB movement.”

IMO: HEB should be limited to 1 hex per burst. HEB should reset the turn mode and count as a speed change. Since you have to wait six impulses before your next speed change you could do no more than one HEB every six impulses.

“Hexes of HEB movement each turn count toward the ship's speed ‘history’ for purposes of acceleration/deceleration.”

How? I’m confused.

“A ship must be moving at least Spd8 in order to HEB (thanks Roger Dupuy and John Trauger) and the HEB must be performed in the current direction of movement.”

X1 ships can accelerate by triple and I’ll assume X2 ships can do the same. HEB requires the ability to accelerate, briefly, to max speed before executing a high warp maneuver. For acceleration reasons I would place the minimum speed as 10 (11 if impulse was used for movement).

“No HET may be performed with HEB. No HET may be performed during the post-HEB period and vice versa. During a HEB impulse the ship may not dock, launch or recover shuttles, and no transporters or tractors can operate.”

If we can keep the penalties for HEB and HET identical it can cut down on rules and rule interactions.

The additional limitations I have suggested reduce the value significantly and would have to be balanced by reducing the cost, either BPV or Warp. But perhaps I have misunderstood some finer point.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 06:07 pm: Edit

John Stiff, as John Trauger notes, a ship would not jump over a mine hex. This is NOT a disi-dev, it is a sudden burst of warp movement. The ship will occupy each hex is passes through in turn just as if it were moving at "normal" speeds (it will just do it for a shorter period of time).

John Trauger, voiding the cloak would be KISSable. I do want this thing to be as simple as possible, but since it's movement I had to put in as much as I did. I think it's as simple as complexity allows.

TOS, let me clarify some points:

Yes, the best-case scenario would be (1 hex for regular movement, plus SC4+1 hexes for HEB) 6 hexes that one impulse. How much energy would that cost the average X2-DD (to say nothing of an X2-FF)? I don't have a problem with restricting the number of hexes within a given impulse but that's the rule as I wrote it.

You "buy" a total number of hexes to HEB. Each impulse you can use one or any or all of those "bought" hexes, but once you've used them they're gone. You don't get all those hexes each time you HEB. So for example that X2-DD that bought 5 hexes can move only an additional 5 hexes that turn. If he uses them on one impulse, they're gone.

The post-HEB period counts mostly for purposes of HET interactions, etc.

For anyone who might ask or be wondering, note that nobody loses a lock on a HEBing unit. Also a HEBing unit can not fire on the HEB impulse. This is NOT the Picard Manuever. My intention was to produce a High Energy manuever that would allow an X2 ship to exceed the Speed 31 barrier. I think the ability to exceed that barrier is important to the flavor of X2.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Take an unmodified X1 SKX with 24 warp on 0.5 MC. Give it warp carryover bats at 3 points each: 6x3=18. 24+18=42 available warp. It moves speed 30 for 15 warp, pays for a HET at 2.5, and buys HEB hexes at 0.5 each.

It is allowed to HEB every 4 impulses and can HEB 5 extra hexes as written. That's a maximum of 8 times a turn or 8x5=40 HEB hexes at a cost of 20 power.

The SKX has:
42 available warp
15 warp to move speed 30 (+1 impulse)
2.5 to pay for the HET/HEB fee
20 to move 20 extra hexes
and moves a total of 30+1+20=51 hexes
leaving 42-15-2.5-20=4.5 warp unused.

Allowing a ship to move 51 hexes in a turn seems unbalancing to me. Hopefully I have performed the calculation incorrectly.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Tos, I agree that there should be no way to move that many hexes.

I though the idea was that you use the break down rating of the ship and reset it each turn. Each hex of extra movement traveled that turn results in a break down roll. So, the first 1 or 2 HEBs use up the bonuses and after that the break down rating is reduced by one each time. So the max any one would move is three extra and would take an awful risk at four or more. The energy cost would be high, 5 + 1xMC each hex.

I think that the maneuver should only be allowed once per turn. Whether you move one extra hex or four constitutes one maneuver but they must be consecutive movement.

The extra bright engine signature would counteract any ECCM bonus you would gain by trans-32 speed, so targeting would be unaffected.

However, I think it should disrupt all EW self generated or lent (would resume when maneuver ends) as well as disrupt cloaking by causing lock-on and fade in (one hex per impulse rate, not X2 cloak rate). Fade out resumes at X2 cloak rate when the maneuver ends (the impulse after the last impulse of HEB movement). The Cloak is still active during the entire process and so fire control is off. Even if the ship faded totally in as a result of a long HEB it could not fire weapons unless it turn off the cloak and went through the standard wait time equal to fade in. This WOULD be a dangerous maneuver for a cloaked ship and should not be attempted except under the direst of circumstances.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 01:29 am: Edit

If the HEB adopts the HET model for operation, SVC has noted in the past that most of the HET energy goes into setting up the effect, not changing the hex-sides. Strikes me that a burst of high-warp would be similar.

Suggestions:

HEB cost is 5 hexes of movement (all warp, no impulse) to get the first hex, then up to 2 more hexes may be bought for the normal move cost. There should be no difference due to size class. I see no reason to give smaller ships more hexes of movement. It's a potentially unbalancing. Potentially VERY unbalancing.

Being scheduled to move doesn't give you a free hex of HEB movement any more than having your turn mode fulfilled matters to the cost of a HET. A HEB is such an extreme departure from normal warp movement that normal movement has nothing to do with HEB movement.

As with the HET, the HEB roll occurs BEFORE the hexes are moved. If blown, ship suffers all HET breakdown effects up to and including roll for tumbling.

For extra points, we can degrade the ship's breakdown rating by 1 for every HEB or HET that occurred within the last 32 impulses. That ought to put a crimp in the plans of anyone who wants to jet around the board using HEBs.

Actual resultion of the HEB is to move into a hex, resolve all movement-related effects and damage, move to the hext hex, rinse and repeat. This makes sure that the ship trips all mines, slams all ESGs, incurs all asteroid hex movement damage that is appropriate to each hex of movement.

HEBing through an asteroid or ring hex uses the Speed-26+ table with a modifier of +2 on the roll. All above 6 = 6.

To balance the advantages of the HEB, HEB movement occurs first before any other movement. Moving to get on that down shield?, well the ship you're trying that on can react, even if he's moving at speed-1.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 01:43 am: Edit

If you want drones to HEB, the only time that it is appropriate is when they are launched. I agree that drone engines just don't have what it takes to HEB on their own and that it's very, very unbalancing to give them that ability.

So instead you can put a "drone accelerator" system box on the SSD. Or make it a drone rack upgrade.

For 2 warp, a drone can HEB 1 hex on the impulse of launch. +1 hex for an additional .5 warp to a max total of 3 hexes.

A drone that has HEBed may not detonate or trigger any warhead efects on the impulse of the HEB, even if it passes through its targer's hex or it ends HEB movement in its target's hex. The poor drone's little brain can't cope with HEB movement but it can re-orient itself for later impulses.

Coupled with my other proposed rules, you can HEB a drone into the hex in front of a ship, and the ship will still have its movement that impulse to react. It could choose to move into the drone's hex on that same impulse and the drone will be too disoriented to impact. Next impulse, the drone will wait for the ship to move (out of the hex) and then probably have to HET to follow.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 02:21 am: Edit

No TOS you're not reading what I wrote (either that or I'm just really reading your post wrong). The HEB must wait the speed change period (6 impulses). The cool-down is to prevent HETs after HEBs (and vice versa). The most any SC4 unit could HEB for the ENTIRE TURN is 5 hexes. Not 6, not 10, and certainly not 40. 5 hexes. That's it. No more. Just 5 hexes for the entire turn. If he uses all 5 in one impulse then he gets no more HEBs the rest of the turn. If we limit him to 3 hexes in one impulse then he'll get to HEB either one more time with 2 hexes or he can HEB two more times (assuming he has enough impulses remaining) with 1 hex each. Maybe I just wrote the rules poorly. Hopefully this is more clear.

Loren, you are correct: the BD rating resets each turn for HEB. However, definitely no to any EW changes other than voiding the cloak (or WW) for simplicity's sake.

John, I'm not sanguine to reducing the hexes for smaller SC units but I do see the argument. No problem with using all breakdown rules as per HET (short of resetting the BD counter). The HEB-movement-before-normal-movement thing actually makes more sense now that I look over the rules again. Ditto the asteroid hex thing which is pretty much what I was thinking anyway. Have to think about the drone thing for awhile.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 07:21 am: Edit

All this is a bit pie in the sky. Since the use of HEB would make Plasma useless.

Sabot was come up with to enable plasma to hit Late GW ships that would cruise along at speed30-31. Giving 2x ships even more speed would make even Sabot plasma virtually useless.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 09:51 am: Edit

I don't see the rule that limits it to SC+1 hexes per turn, but I am relieved to hear that is the intent. Still, I don't like anything that can allow a ship to move more than 1 extra hex.

Think of what this will due to a range 8 oblique pass between an X2 ship and a non-X2 ship. What should the non-X2 ship do? If it fires the X2 ship turns to close, if it doesn't fire the X2 ship alphas and HEBs out of overload range. Ugly choice.

I'm leary of serious playbalance issues here, and not just about plasma. Even one hex per turn has significant implications.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 09:54 am: Edit

When would a HEB be announced? IMO a HEB should have to be announced the impulse before the manuever during the speed change announcement phase.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 01:08 pm: Edit

RBN: I would be pretty simple to say that during HEB movement all EW in nullified. In some cases that might be a good thing for the HEB'ing ship, others bad. EW resumes when the maneuver is over. That's a one line rule.

The Cloak Nullification rule is more complicated but clearly nessesary. There should be an even penalty and since no one else cloaks (other than Orions) the EW thing seemed natural.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Tos,
You have a good point about play balance especially with plasma. Drones and wait and close distance later. Plasma can't.

Including the HEB would probably require the counterdevelopment of the super sabot to keep plasma competitive. And that could break any number of other things and have a disproportionate impact on X2 vs. GW battles.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Which was why I didn't like Trans32 speeds when they were first brought up months ago.

You allow trans 32 ship speeds. Plasma would have to jump up to a minimum of 48. Which means a simple S would be an Uber weapon vs GW.

I srill like Lorens Drone booster idea. As long as it's a Limited type module it wouldnt be overly powerful vs GW.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit

I agree. A HEB accellerator for launching drones would occupy the same niche as Loren's drone boosters. Good tech for Klingons or the FRAX (or both considering they're a Klingon simulator race)

This is not to say the HEB for ships is automatically a bad idea but it does require a bit more consideration than I might have first thought.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit

We could saythe HEB is a more tenuous maneuver and must be pre-plotted (unlike the HET). If that's a little too tough, we could say the turn quarter must be noted (i.e. Quarter 1 would be impulses 1-8, Quarter 2 = Imp 9-16, etc.) if you do not perform the HEB during the plotted quarter then it is lost.

This would lessen the impact on plasma some, with the exception of plasma launched prior to the turn.

I still have a problem with an HEB being performed by slow moving ships. It shouldn't cost the same for a ship moving Spd 6 as a ship moving Spd 26.

Also, what is the cost if I perform an HEB while moving speed six and I would be moving for 4 impulses? The HEB is netting me two extra hexes of movement. Can an HEB only be performed on an impulse of normal movement?

If I'm moving spd 30 and I perform an HEB is it less because I'm only netting one extra hex of movement?

How would energy be plotted? At speed six an HEB might net only one hex but it might also net two hexes.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 05:43 pm: Edit

John,

Well, the HEB proposal did not say it could or could not jump a minefield. So, I implied that it could. I would argue that the ship is going too fast for the mine's sensors to detect. Jumping a minefield implies that web can be crossed, an ESG field could be crossed, and asteroids, planets, etc.

A better arguement is: When a ship disengages, (after going the max speed for one full turn), nothing can touch it. The ship is in "full warp". I thought HEB was like this, but for a single impulse. I remember the "Picard manuever" now that you mentioned it. Sounds like an HEB to me.

I thought the proposal was saying that the number of hexes was limited only by the amount of warp power spent. I suggested a maximum number of hexes per HEB. Be it 3, 6, 12. (Someone said it was 5 total hexes per turn? I guess I didn't see that.)

The whole point of the X2 ships was to fight the Andros. X tech for the Andros would be a bad thing. HEB for Andros would be a bad thing too.

The SKX would roll for HEB break down 8 times. But, yes, under the proposal, speed 51 is possible. Watch out Andros, that is faster than you can go (with 1 DDev). Perhaps that much warp should be outlawed. Now, I will not mention an Orion X-ship with HEB. The ship could probably go 64 hexes with doubled warp engines. (I'm not going to calculate it out.)

Perhaps the chance for a breakdown should be increased for the second and third (etc.) HEB during the same turn. Or the HEB could only be used twice in a turn.

Certainly, a ship with a lot of warp power using HEB successfully would be unbalancing.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Okay I wrote the rule but obviously I didn't write it more clearly (I'll work on that for the revision). Here it is paraphrased: the ship must move through each hex and the player must move the ship's counter through each hex and if a hex contains a weapon or effect that could affect the ship then it takes the hit/effect. I'm assuming mines are smart enough to detect the super-fast unit.

As to the Plasma (or any seeking weapon) issue, what if we did this? The HEB is performed in step 7B of the movement order of precedence (XC1.313-2) as "X-ships make tactical manuevers." I realize that HETs are performed at the point of movement but would this be a reasonable exception? In fact what if HEBs were timed under the rules of (XC5.0)? HEBs use the timing under (XC5.0) but use the breakdown rules of (XC6.0).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 09:19 pm: Edit

John,

No, the Picard maneuver is bad writers employing worse science.

My personal perspective is that the less of the Trek Franchise you allow to bleed into your SFB, the better.

Especially since the ADB is not licensed to use anything from it.

As for passing through the intervening hexes, I refer you to RBN's September 28 post where he first tossed out his idea. It contains this sentence: "Note that the player MUST physically move the counter through each desired hex."

And yeah, a ship should probably be able to HEB through a mine hex and escape the blast, but then you have to take a step back and remember this is a game. Play balance has to trump any logic applied to the game universe or the game isn't fun. Play balance demands that a maneuver like the HEB have costs and problems that counterbalance the advantages.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Integrating a new rule with existing rules is tough. There have been plenty of addenda for the existing rules.

The Picard manuever is no worse that the other "techno-babble" used in TNG. Doesn't mean I didn't watch. I look at the TOS communicator and today's cell phone and say, Star Trek predicted that!

Did the latest show (Enterprise) borrow the Xindi race from SFB? Sounds like Kzinti to me.

Play balance is tough to determine. Playtesting helps, but it is subjective. There is a vast difference between slow, medium, and fast drones, yet the BPV does not reflect this (in my opinion). ADB is always "tweaking" the tournament ships for play balance. It is like rock, paper, scissors. Certain ships tend to beat other ships most of the time.

The HEB is proposed as an X Ship ability. In the SFB universe the X Ships are in limited supply. The HEB caught my eye as an interesting idea.

John

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 01:31 pm: Edit

John,

Actually the Picard Maneuver set the bar for the worst science used in the Franchise. That mark held until Voyager introduced us to a "Class-M ring system" around a gas giant. I kinda lost track (read: lost interest) after that.

The HEB *is* interesting, potentially unbalancing as well.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit

You think that is bad? Try a Dyson sphere around a sun! There is not enough metal in a solar system to create one, nor air, nor soil, nor water, etc. TNG used this premise in one of their episodes.