E3.___.0 TRUE DISRUPTORS
E3.___.01 Preamble True disruptors are a more stylised form a disruptor that gives a certain spash of colour to the game.
..... In essence the true diruptor is a disruptor that fires a superluminal microwave package at its intended target. Then like a metal object in a kitchen microwave produces sparks so to a vessel fired apon by true diruptors is enveloped is a chaotic web of lightening bolts that can and do short-out systems within the vessel.

E3.___.1 Cost.
E3.___.11 Each True Disruptor costs 10 BPV and all Disruptor on every ship of that race during that scenario or campaign must be a True Disruptor or none at all.
If extra UIM modules are bought for a vessel then the UIM shall cost 0.25 more BPV per True Disruptor mounted on the vessel, to purchase, each.

E3.___.2 Opperation.
E3.___.21 True disruptors opperate as disruptors in all ways except where listed here. They have the same damage and to hit abilities as regular disruptors and can be fired overloaded or standard and with or without Derfacs or UIM.

E3.___.22 When a true disruptor is fired at a target, that target shall be wrapped in an electrical envelop and shall suffer from Disrupted Fire Control ( D6.68 ) if certain criteria are found to be the case.

E3.___.23 When the damage is inflicted on a vessel by a vessel using True Disruptors, the Disruptor damage is resolved first. This is NOT its own volley like Hellbores but is still resolved first, that is the defending player has the option of applying true disruptor damage first ( thus allowing his sheild and sheild reinforcement to take the damage ). If any internal damage is inflicted by the True Disruptors; then the number of points of internal damage shall be recorded.
Phaser damage is applied after one resolves how much internal damage and how much shield damage was inflicted by the True Disurptors.

E3.___.24 Sheild Damage.
E3.___.241 If a ship takes an amount of shield damage from the true disruptors equal to or greater than; a certain threshold then the true disruptors shall cause that vessel to suffer from Disruptoed Fire Control ( D6.68 ) as listed in those rules.
The threshold is 12 times the Movement Cost of the target vessel ( rounded off ) in points of damage.
X1 ships shall add 3 points to the Threshold and X2 ships shall add 5 points to the threshold.
Note that this is actual shield damage and damage absorbed by Specific or General Shield Reinforcement (allocated or impromptu ) shall reduce the ammount of inflicted damage for the purposes of the threshold calculation.
If True Disruptor fire hits a ship on the impulse before the calculation of the threshold on this impulse, then 1 point per disruptor hit should be added to the disruptor damage for the threshold calculations.

For speed of calculations use the table below.

MC. Threshold
0.166	2
0.2	2
0.25	3
0.333	4
0.5	6
0.66	8
0.75	9
1	12
1.25	15
1.5	18
1.75	21
2	24

E3.___.25 Internal Damage.
If the Ture Diruptors inflict internal damage then there is no threshold. Additionally every point of internal damage inflicted by true disruptors shall cause the Disrupted Fire control to last 1 impulse longer.

I.E. Duration of Disrupted Fire Control = (4 + Internal Damage inflicted by True Disruptors) impulses long.

E3.___.26 Shuttles and Fighters.
Shuttles, Fighters and Defsats will suffer from disrupted fire control from any hits with a true disruptor.
Drones are automatically killed by true disruptor hits.
PF are counted as ships for the purposes of True Disruptors.

E3.___.27 Bases.
Bases have specialised insulation that starships can not use because they are expected to travel through space at high speeds whilst the base stays in orbit or is stationary and thus can afford the massive weight increase of the insulations, thus all forms of base are immune to special effects of true disruptors, although they still do take damage.

E3.___.3 Grounding.
Units that are on the ground are considered grounded and thus are immune to the special effect of True Disruptors.

E3.___.4 Repair.
True Disruptors cost 1 more CDR point to repair than their "false" versions of themselves. A True Disruptor however may only be repaired as a true disruptor and can not be repaired as a non true disruptor.

E3.___.5 Notes.
The basic idea is that disruptors inflict disrupted fire control on the target vessel.
I hope the massive increase in BPV of ships ( an orginary unrefitted D6 costs 153 BPV with the true disruptors ) would balance out the special effect of the disruptors.

Mostly I was just thinking that lots of people want the Photon to be improved and I wondered what an improved Disruptor would look like.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Maybe I posted this on the wrong day.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 08:09 pm: Edit

so, you want to take what is arguably one of the best weapons in the game and give it the ability to shut off fire control on the target ship

I don't think that 10 bpv per weapon is anywhere close to being expensive enough (especially in a fleet action)

this is the type of thing that becomes FAR more effective the more disrupters you have

try something like 10 BPV +1 per weapon per disrupter in the fleet (so a fleet with 40 disrupters would be paying 50 BPV per weapon) and you may be in the ballpark

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Can someone explain why this proposal does not violate the spirit of the Auto reject list?(see red highlighted section).

D–COMBAT: Offset-firing arcs (standard arcs rotated 30°).
Increasing the explosion force (we just reduced it!).
Giving a ship free EW points for its speed.
Any weapon that only affects shields.
Any weapon that only affects crew or disables warp engines (would result in too many captured ships).
Any weapon that only affects sensors (or only scanners or only special sensors). These are rejected because they would provide a "cheap mission kill" capability that dis-rupted the tempo of battle.
Any means of tractors damaging or dismembering ships.
Using a single 12-sided die for the DAC.
Procedures to target damage on a specific part of a ship.
Improvements in non-violent combat.

the Key phrase of MJC proposal reads as:

quote:"...E3.___.5 Notes.
The basic idea is that disruptors inflict disrupted fire control on the target vessel."

Does the Auto Reject List now need to be changed to reflect references to "cheap kills" by disrupting a target ships fire control?

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 09:01 pm: Edit

I was just looking at that, Jeff, and I believe the list does need the upgrade.
This falls into the "loophole zone", which needs to be closed. The weapon, as he has it, produces real damage (thus negating the first auto-reject qualification), and it does not specifically damage the scanners or sensors (roll damage normally), but it definately does delve into the "cheap-kill" catagory.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 10:00 pm: Edit

I agree that this proposal probably violates the spirit of the Auto reject list, even if it doesn't violate the letter. But it has other problems as well (and not just BPV related).

The threshold where shield damage can disrupt fire control is tied to movemet cost. So let's see if I've got this straight. My Tholian Patrol Corvette has movement cost of 1/3 and therefor a disruption threshold of 4. But if it carries a cargo pack, increasing its MC to 1/2, the threshold for disrupted fire control becomes 6. Because it's carrying a cargo pack... Yeah, that makes sense...

I realize that tying the disruption effects to MC was an attempt to make bigger ships more resistant to the effect, not at all unreasonable in and of itself. But with all due respect to MJC, tying this to movement cost is a very poorly thought out way to mechanize this.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 06:53 am: Edit

For fun disruptor effects use the Leaky Shields rule for disr damage only. It was a 'major advantage' that could be bought in my design your own campaign, and it was kinda fun. Especially assuming that your group doens't play leaky shields normally.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 07:36 am: Edit

It also doesn't make sense that the "metal object in a kitchen microwave" sparks would have ANY effect on shields whatsoever.
Why not say it works as a normal disruptor on shields and can disrupt fire control if it exceeds a threshold of internals. Make it 5 BPV instead of 10 and I think it approaches balance.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 09:09 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Maybe I posted this on the wrong day.

---

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 09:15 am: Edit

You also misspelled "shield". Ha-HA!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 09:26 am: Edit

Troy, I'm not sure that would balance the proposal given David Langs point concerning the improved effectiveness as more disrupters are present in larger battle forces...(for example, the more disrupters taking shots increases the probability that the targeted ship will have its Fire Control disrupted.)

Also look at David's recommendation of 10+1 BPV per disrupter... with 40 disrupters present (which breaks down to 10 x D7 cruisers at 4 Disrupters per D7) and a 50 BPV surcharge per weapon on 40 disrupters would equal 2,000 BPVs over and above the cost of the fleet.

if we just look at a klingon fleet of 10 D7's at 121 BPV's (ignoring for the moment command limits) the fleet base cost would be 1,210 BPV's. Adding 2,000 BPV's more for the Disrupter surcharge brings the Battle force total up to 3,210 BPV's (without any Commanders options points used yet).

Bottom line, a Klingon fleet armed with MJC's "True Disrupters" would be devastating against all enemies since they could inflict "disrupted Fire Control" at will.

Game balance isses alone should be enough to kill this idea as the disrupted fire control would make Klingon armed ships more than 2 1/2 times
more effective than any opposing ship could hope to be.

Shoot, if you look at it on a ship for ship basis, a D7 with 4 true disrupters would have to pay a 50 point surcharge (per David Langs suggestion) making the D7 worth:

121+(4*50)=321 BPV's

The base Klingon B10 has a BPV of 316.

By disrupting an opponents Fire Control, the "True Disrupter" armed ships will be able to continue to hit and damage the target while the target will be unable to effectively shoot back.

I don't think this would be very fun to play.

By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Well, if you are gonna technobabble an additional effect to a weapon, you may as well add this effect to all plasma torpedo impacts and PPD pulses. Oh yeah, don't forget an EMP effect for photon torpedos too. And, who says that the hulls are made of microwavable effected metal? They could be ceramic composite or even an unknown to us material that would resist said effect. This just adds another item to the game to slow down an already slow game system.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Alan,

You said "The threshold where shield damage can disrupt fire control is tied to movement cost. So let's see if I've got this straight. My Tholian Patrol Corvette has movement cost of 1/3 and therefor a disruption threshold of 4. But if it carries a cargo pack, increasing its MC to 1/2, the threshold for disrupted fire control becomes 6. Because it's carrying a cargo pack... Yeah, that makes sense... "

Even better - Park your PC in web and adopt web anchor status. MC is now infinite!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Any weapon that only affects sensors (or only scanners or only special sensors). These are rejected because they would provide a "cheap mission kill" capability that dis-rupted the tempo of battle.
The effects of Disrupted Fire Control ( if sheild damage only ) would last only for 4 impulses.

Procedures to target damage on a specific part of a ship.
This is about as specific and Non-violent damage.
The ship is still free to fire on seeking weapons within three hexes.

---

Quote:

But if it carries a cargo pack, increasing its MC to 1/2, the threshold for disrupted fire control becomes 6. Because it's carrying a cargo pack... Yeah, that makes sense...

---

---

Quote:

Why not say it works as a normal disruptor on shields and can disrupt fire control if it exceeds a threshold of internals. Make it 5 BPV instead of 10 and I think it approaches balance.

---

---

Quote:

Bottom line, a Klingon fleet armed with MJC's "True Disrupters" would be devastating against all enemies since they could inflict "disrupted Fire Control" at will.

---

---

Quote:

By disrupting an opponents Fire Control, the "True Disrupter" armed ships will be able to continue to hit and damage the target while the target will be unable to effectively shoot back.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 07:51 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

No, you posted it for the wrong game system. This is not wanted, needed, meritted or otherwise warranted for SFB.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 08:14 pm: Edit

MJC posted: quote:"The effects of Disrupted Fire Control ( if sheild damage only ) would last only for 4 impulses."

Which is absolutely and totally besides the point.

the effect of inflicting an involuntary response on the target ship is the issue that violates the spirit of the Auto Reject rule.

The duration is not at issue, and wouldnt make a difference if it only lasted a single impulse or 100 impulses.

You created a situation here where the target ship is powerless to affect the timing of the battle.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 09:38 pm: Edit

also the disruption is 4+#internals

once shields are down and you into miza damage the disupters can be fired in sequence (potentially from several ships if needed) to make it so that the target ship never has a chance to fire ( and this doesn't need to be a lot of damage, 1 point every 5 impulses will do the job, that's only 6 points of actual damage/turn, but it's enough to sompletely keep a ship from firing.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 09:56 pm: Edit

And which makes this idea unbalanced and open to abuse.

The more I examine this, the more convinced I am that the estimated BPV equation is actually understating the correct position.

Playtesting would prove it conclusively, but This may not be a direction the game should be going in.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 07:31 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

the effect of inflicting an involuntary response on the target ship is the issue that violates the spirit of the Auto Reject rule.

---

---

Quote:

You created a situation here where the target ship is powerless to affect the timing of the battle.

---

---

Quote:

once shields are down and you into miza damage the disupters can be fired in sequence (potentially from several ships if needed) to make it so that the target ship never has a chance to fire ( and this doesn't need to be a lot of damage, 1 point every 5 impulses will do the job, that's only 6 points of actual damage/turn, but it's enough to sompletely keep a ship from firing.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 09:04 pm: Edit

MJC:

You were better off not answering this post.

the manner you address this and the examples you cite are actually arguments infavor of ruling this proposal illegal.

The Auto Reject rule was established for a reason.

The more you argue with false and misleading assumptions, the stronger you build the case for declaring this proposal a violation of the Auto Reject Rule.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 09:15 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Maybe I posted this on the wrong day.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Agreed Mike.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Comment #1: The background and means by which the rule works are in direct conflict. If the weapon requires an interaction with the hull, then it cannot have the described affect at all unless the shield of the target ship is down. So long as there is shield, there is no contact between the disruptor and the "metal" of the hull. If it were possible to have an effect on the metal of the hull, then shuttles of opposing ships would not need a down shield in order to crash land aboard, and weapons would have direct affects without having to damage the shield.

Comment #2: Since disruptors do not normally wrap around targets, the effect cannot happen unless a "facing" shield is down.

Comment #3: Calling something a "true disruptor" and then labeling existing disruptors "false disruptors" is not the best way in the world to try to convince anyone to adopt the system. You might have gone with "Enhanced Disruptors".

Comment #4: Using a Federation Destroyer as your means of proving the system works and is balanced is a famous gambit here at ADB. The Andromedans have used the existence of the Federation Destroyer as proof that their power absorber panels need to have their ability to absorb energy increased. Never mind that no other destroyer in the game has the ability to put out more than 32 points of direct-fire damage (on average) at eight hexes range. Further, as the unrefitted destroyer you used in your example has exactly 19 points of power, of which 2.5 is used to operate the ship, eight may be in use to either be loading the torpedoes, or in holding overloads (since you are going for range eight), dumping six more power into shield reinforcement means that 16.5 points of its power is being used, i.e., it has a speed of seven. That pretty much means that the F5 will control the battle, although obviously the punch of four photon torpedoes even on proximity fuses will not be something easy for it to ignore.

Frankly, you have just relegated the Destroyer to not moving at all, and that does not seem like a very 'fun' game to me. Nor does it seem like you have actually tried to see what effect your rule would have, you just threw it together without really running any test other than paper and pencil without real consideration of its effect on "real play". This is borne out by the fact that your chosen example simply uses the power of the destroyer without consideration of what the use of that power has done to its ability to maneuver.

While I have taken the time to look at this, I cannot consider this proposal seriously.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 07:57 pm: Edit

I don't think that #4 is entirely fair.

If a Klingon F5 is firing true disruptors at overload levels for both and pays house keeping it is dumping 10.5 of her 20 points of generated power into these activities and is not generating any reinforcement of the shields ( which would be advisible considing the crunch power of the photons). Even so she is looking at a speed of 19 ( or 23 if she commits BTTY to something that frees up warp ).
But this would be true even if the Fed wasn't looking for shield reinfocement ( moving at 15 as a top speed whilst arming four standard photons ).

The Fed DD is not required to use reinforcement and it is not required to arm every tube ( what kind of Fed DD commander would arm every ture if he came up against an F5 !?! ) so to say that the DD would definately have to a top speed of 7 whilst bricking is unfair.

• If the Fed DD is willing to take four impulses of disrupted fire control and then fire at whatever range it is at when the effect passes four impulses latter or a few impulses after that then all that power can be committed to movement.
• If the Fed DD is trying to Iron Jaw its way into R4 without suffering disrupted fire control then it would be prudent to leave one of the phot-tubes empty. Which in turn finds 2 warp power ( or four hexes of movement ). Indeed 4 Imp & 15 warp minus 6 for Photons, 4 four Reinforcement ( plus a further two from BTTYs ) plus housekeeping, leaves the vessel with a speed of 13.
• If the Fed DD merely wants to hurl what it has at R8 and leave then it matters not if it's fire control is disrupted for four impulses after it fires as the effect will not affect the DD on the impulse it fires ( assuming it fires her alpha the instant she arrives at R8 ) and thus she needs no investment of power into shield reinforcement.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:31 am: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

You are the one that read off an essential EA for the Federation DD that dropped it down to speed five. Not me.

There is a heck of a difference in controlling range between speed five and speed 19.

So, yes, the review was fair.

Your sudden desire to "revise" your earlier analysis above does not change the fact that your previous justification was flawed to the extreme.

Sorry, but I am done here.