| By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, April 05, 2026 - 03:58 pm: Edit |
Frank - That is correct and indeed the entire point of (D4.34). Though they combine into a single volley, you resolve the damage points in the order specified for evaluating phaser directional damage.
Gregory - The mention of moving via DisDev is part of the parenthetical clause, so the restriction applies to deployment via any means. Also, if you think being able to transport out a unit that can fire six TRHs 4 impulses later is too good to be true….
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Wednesday, April 08, 2026 - 02:24 pm: Edit |
Thanks Alex.
That is what I thought.
Cheers
Frank
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 09:20 pm: Edit |
Question about 5 DEFSATs in a system.
Can the 3 low DEFSATS orbit clockwise and the 2 high DEFSATs orbit counter clockwise ?
Or do all DEFSATs have to orbit the same way ?
Thanks
Cheers
Frank
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 11:31 pm: Edit |
Good question, Frank. TBH, I've never thought about it, but my knee-jerk first thought is that all natural and artificial satellites around almost every planet orbit the same way (IIRC, Triton, around Neptune, is the only natural exception to that rule, and it's believed to be a capture), so I'd imagine it's probably required that they do orbit the same way.
However, I'm wrong more often than I'm right, so who knows...
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, April 14, 2026 - 08:29 am: Edit |
Satellites (which is what DefSats are, after all) can be placed in either prograde (west to east on Earth) or retrograde orbit. If launched from the ground, retrograde (east to west on Earth) orbits require more fuel to get them there, reducing the payload somewhat for current chemically-propelled launch vehicles; however, in a setting where they could be placed in orbit by a ship, ground-based tractor beam, etc., that is moot.
(P8.1) does not mandate orbiting in a specific direction; it merely notes that if not otherwise defined by a scenario or the owning player, the orbit is presumed to be clockwise. Nothing in any rule requires all DefSats deployed around a planet to orbit in the same direction. So feel free to rev up your DefSat MixMaster. 
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 14, 2026 - 02:01 pm: Edit |
Frank Lemay:
There is no rule requiring DefSats to orbit in the same direction other than to ensure coverage (which is implied, not a written rule). If you want your satellites to orbit in opposite directions between the upper and lower orbital limits, feel free.
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Tuesday, April 14, 2026 - 04:55 pm: Edit |
Thank you SSP and all.
Cheers
Frank
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 15, 2026 - 02:31 am: Edit |
You can certainly do it. I cannot imagine why it would be any better. (I am trying to remember if they actually have to orbit at all.)
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Wednesday, April 15, 2026 - 08:08 am: Edit |
SVC,
I think he is just trying something different for fun.
On 1 turn, there were 3 within 1 hex of each other, 2 low and 1 high.
Cheers
Frank
| By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, April 15, 2026 - 12:54 pm: Edit |
(R1.15G) says they can only be placed in standard orbits and that they cannot be stationary. (R1.15A) says that *normally* they are deployed as a set of five, three low (1-hex) and two high (2 or 3-hex) orbits. That arrangement, with them evenly spaced, is definitely the customary and I suspect published scenarios with DefSats deviate rarely, if it all - but there is definitely room for players to experiment (as long as they are orbiting).
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, April 16, 2026 - 09:27 pm: Edit |
At 20 per, there's only the (overall) expense to limit how many one wants in orbit. Five are shown but one may want 10 or 15 for a more prominent planet.
At one per hex of orbit space, the cost is only 720 …
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Saturday, April 18, 2026 - 07:25 am: Edit |
Question re capturing an inert scatter pack.
The SP has launched its drones.
An enemy ship beams a pilot on board it and flies it inside the enemy ship.
Is there booby traps to get by ?
Can this captured SP now be converted to a regular admin shuttle to place 2 BPs on board in an attempt to capture an enemy ship ?
Can it be armed as an SS ?
I am unable to find a reference re this event.
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Saturday, April 18, 2026 - 12:19 pm: Edit |
Question re ship docking to ship.
Situation is as follows.
Lyran DWS and a DD want to dock to the space wreck Fed FFG that has no power in order to capture it, only 1 Bridge left on FFG ship.
C13.97 seems to allow multi ship docking.
I am thinking the procedure is as follows,
One of the Lyran ship must have the other Lyran ship and Fed FFG tractored as per C13.91.
FFG has 0 power to fight the tractor.
C13.9612 indicates a bridgehead must be formed to allow BPs to cross over into the enemy ship.
With the DWS and DD docked to the FFG, do they get to have 10 BPs each trying to form a bridgehead vs the FFG's 10 BP attempting to prevent this bridgehead.
That would be 20 Lyran BPs attacking vs 10 Fed BPs defending.
Or only 1 Lyran ship can form 10 BPs to attack the FFG defending 10 BPs.
If this is true and the Lyran ship wins the combat, can the other Lyran ship now send over BPs on the following turn ?
Is the above correct ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
| By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, April 18, 2026 - 07:30 pm: Edit |
Question on Fed saucer warp:
Even though the Fed CB has two warp in the saucer section, I don't believe those points can be used for movement while the saucer is attached. However, since HETs do not add anything to the practical (C6.13) speed, can those two be used as reserve warp in the execution of an HET?
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, April 19, 2026 - 11:15 am: Edit |
Follow up question re forming a bridgehead.
Once a bridgehead has been formed by the Lyrans for example, are the Lyran BPs considered to be on board the enemy Fed ship ?
If so, then the defending Fed ship may be able to perform a SD roll on turn x+1 ?
Thanks
Cheers
Frank
| By David Hanson (Glimaash) on Tuesday, April 21, 2026 - 01:42 pm: Edit |
We have a question about drones caught in a web.
When a drone is called can it turn while in a web?
If not free to turn. Can it turn to fulfill the F2.22, which requires it to keep the target in the FA arc?
The rules are clear the ships and shuttles can turn when called in G10.57. Drones are required to keep the target in the FA arc in F2.22.
(G10.57) MANEUVERS BY TRAPPED SHIPS: "...It can turn in accordance with the Turn Mode for its practical speed (C2.411), even though it is not actually moving."
(F2.22) TRACKING ARC: Having satisfied the above conditions, the seeking weapon must move in such a way to place or keep the target in the weapon’s FA firing arc. If this is not possible, the seeking
weapon must move in such a way as to place or keep the target in the weapon’s FX firing arc. If this is not possible, this condition is ignored. Note that ship-guided weapons are unaffected by an out of arc target, while certain self-guided weapons must have the target in their FA arc or they become inert (FD1.7) and cease to function.
We settled on a half measure in that the drone would only turn if the ship leaves the FA arc. This is a campaign so this situation will be coming up a lot so am hoping to know what the ruling is on this point.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 21, 2026 - 03:22 pm: Edit |
If the drone is not destroyed by impact with the web it can turn to keep its target in its tracking arc, or bring it back into its tracking arc If the target's movement took it out of arc).
| By David Hanson (Glimaash) on Thursday, April 23, 2026 - 02:34 pm: Edit |
INT scouts with the EW pods. Do the other INTs in the squadron have to be within 3 hex to receive the lending?
There is nothing about range in K3.75. It references J11.23 which references to J4.92 which contains J4.921 which says a fight must be within 3 of an EWF.
J4.921) Any fighter that has a lock-on to and is within either three hexes of an uncrippled EWF (or MRS, or SWAC shuttle) from its squadron, or which is within ten hexes of its specific home carrier (or base), can receive “loaned” ECM and ECCM from that source.
Thanks.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, April 23, 2026 - 04:32 pm: Edit |
David Hanson:
I am afraid three hexes is the limit, but not if the PF (interceptor) tender is within ten hexes it can lend the interceptors of its squadron EW. I am afraid, however, that the EW pods are just EW pods, there is nothing magical about them that turns them into special sensors, they allow you to lend EW to your squadron and can thus have an effect if you plan their use.
| By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Thursday, April 23, 2026 - 10:28 pm: Edit |
SPP....can we get a ruling on my question above regarding Fed warp in the saucer? Does H2.5 only apply to Klingon penal ships? There was some decent discussion on the FB group page over this but the rules surrounding "movement related" versus "movement " seem a bit circular or less than precise. If Fed saucer warp can be used for an HET but not hexes of movement, if added to reserve warp, must it be denoted separately?
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, April 27, 2026 - 03:39 pm: Edit |
Dennis Surdu:
While there is nothing in the rules that says the the small warp engines on Fed saucers are emergency engines and can be used for power but not movement while the saucer is attached, nothing says they cannot. I have to admit that I have used them as simply added engines when I gamed a lot. Lacking any formal rule, however, and noting that the SSD itself does not call them "emergency engines" nor, for that matter, are the impulse engines so limited, I would say that they are useable for all movement functions while the saucer is attached,, including HET, EM, etc.
| By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, April 27, 2026 - 08:47 pm: Edit |
(R2.76) in the Fed MSSB includes:
Quote:Warp pack: The two box center warp engine in the saucer can be used to generate power but cannot be used to generate movement points unless the saucer has been separated: (G12.102) and (G12.214).
| By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 - 01:32 pm: Edit |
SPP......Thank you so much for the reply. I do believe, however, that the R section for the Fed CB, for example, states they cannot be used for movement. I agree, however, that they could be used for "movement related" functions, like HET, etc. Like you I have played the CB alot and used the 2 warp for movement as well, until I read the R section descriptor.
| By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 - 02:14 pm: Edit |
Alex, thank you for that summary detail which helps spell out reasons for the coconfusion. I would add, again, that if the center warp in the CB can be used for HET but not movement points, does that mean one has to segregate those two points from other points of energy if used in reserve warp?
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 - 02:44 pm: Edit |
They are essentially treated as AWRs unless the saucer has separated. Which means they can provide power but not movement energy, and as APRs cannot provide movement (as impulse power) nor can impulse engines hastily repaired as APRs, AWRs or regular warp engines cannot provide movement energy. As to HETs, they require warp ENGINE power, which excludes auxiliary warp reactor power. And if the warp engines on the CB saucer are restricted from providing warp movement while the saucer is attached, they cannot provide HET energy while the saucer is attached.
| By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 - 06:39 pm: Edit |
SPP, thank you for the reply. So, are "movement related" and "movement" used interchangeably? The rules are clear that an HET is not "movement" and does not add to the practical speed of a starship. So, since an HET is not "movement", the rules in the least imply that the saucer warp can be used for "movement related" functions. Treating them as AWRs is a very good way to look at it and would add a lot of clarity. Nowhere in the rules that we can find is that cut and dry. So is the ruling "any warp engines located on a separable starship section are treated as AWR until separation"? Does this mean that these warp engine points in a Fed saucer cannot be added to reserve warp?
Thanks again for your time and I sincerely hope you are feeling well.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 - 02:10 pm: Edit |
Yes, such "warp packs" are treated as AWRs until the saucer is separated.
| By David Hanson (Glimaash) on Monday, May 04, 2026 - 12:40 pm: Edit |
I have a question about launching drones off fighter rails. I was taught long again it had to launch the same facing as the fighter (out the #1 shield). I mention this to my opponent but cannot find anything in the rules that say this directly. The direction can be implied by the FA target restriction, but that is a thin argument. Is there an official ruling in this regard?
Thanks, David
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, May 04, 2026 - 02:23 pm: Edit |
While (J4.21) does not specifically say that the drone must have the same facing as the fighter, it is the clear intent. Nothing anywhere, short of a blossoming Scatter-Pack provides any other rationale, and (FD7.444) Specifically limits Scatter-Pack fighters to targets in the FA arc of a fighter used as a Scatter-Pack.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |