| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
VulcanDropout
Lieutenant JG
Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 78
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:15 am Post subject: Two hellbores hitting a ship with two "weakest" sh |
 |
|
If a ship is hit by two hellbores and has two (or more) 'weakest' shields, can the owner choose that the main portion of the damage be allocated to two different shields?
For example, if an undamaged D7 were hit by 2 OL HB at range 8 (damage 10+9 each) could it choose that the first HB spreads its damage 2/2/10/2/1/2 and the second damage spread is 2/2/1/2/10/2?
I am assuming that the allocation decision preceeds the actual allocation of damage, so the damage from the first HB doesn't bring the 3rd shield down to a dozen boxes and break the tie for weakest shield.
While I'm on the subject, I'm assuming that phaser fire in the same impulse won't break a 2 (or more) way tie before the HB damage is allocated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dharras
Lieutenant JG
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 47
Location: Bristol, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:22 am Post subject: Re: Two hellbores hitting a ship with two "weakest" |
|
|
| Zaron wrote: | If a ship is hit by two hellbores and has two (or more) 'weakest' shields, can the owner choose that the main portion of the damage be allocated to two different shields?
For example, if an undamaged D7 were hit by 2 OL HB at range 8 (damage 10+9 each) could it choose that the first HB spreads its damage 2/2/10/2/1/2 and the second damage spread is 2/2/1/2/10/2?
I am assuming that the allocation decision preceeds the actual allocation of damage, so the damage from the first HB doesn't bring the 3rd shield down to a dozen boxes and break the tie for weakest shield.
While I'm on the subject, I'm assuming that phaser fire in the same impulse won't break a 2 (or more) way tie before the HB damage is allocated. |
If both hellbores are fired from the same ship, then their damage will be combined. (4K3f)
This will produce a rather unfortunate 20+18. Assuming an undamaged D7, the damage will be 1 burnthrough, then 19 on any shield other than #1. Then 4 on 3 other shields and 3 on the remaining two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:25 am Post subject: Re: Two hellbores hitting a ship with two "weakest" |
|
|
| Zaron wrote: | | If a ship is hit by two hellbores and has two (or more) 'weakest' shields, can the owner choose that the main portion of the damage be allocated to two different shields? |
He can choose which of the 2equal weakest shields takes the main part.
As noted above, it depends on whether it is 2 hellbores from 1 ship or 2 ships. i.e. are they in the same volley. 2 ships is 2 volleys, so each resolves the weakest shields at the point you resolve that volley. He would be able to choose the first volley to go on which shield he wants, but unless something else has happened in between (or it was batteried away), the second hellbore will now hit that shield again as it will be the weakest shield after the first lot of damage.
| Quote: |
While I'm on the subject, I'm assuming that phaser fire in the same impulse won't break a 2 (or more) way tie before the HB damage is allocated. |
That also depends on whether the phasers were from a different ship or not. Phasers fired in the same impulse from a different ship can weaken a shield for the subsequent hellbore volley, but phasers from the same ship as the hellbores won't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terryoc
Captain
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the phaser question:
If the phasers are declared as "directed targeting" at the same target as the hellbores (from the same ship etc) then there will be a volley of hellbores and a volley containing the phasers.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| terryoc wrote: | Regarding the phaser question:
If the phasers are declared as "directed targeting" at the same target as the hellbores (from the same ship etc) then there will be a volley of hellbores and a volley containing the phasers. |
It still can't weaken the shield for the hellbore 'weakest shield' choice though, unless as noted above they were from different ships. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terryoc
Captain
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Storeylf, yes it does, I have a published command note on the subject.
It works like this:
Declare hellbores and phasers, with directed targeting.
ETA: This can't be resolved as one volley because hellbores cannot use directed targeting. These are split into two volleys.
Resolve phasers first. This will ding the shield.
Then resolve the hellbores. At this point, you determine which shield is weakest.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| terryoc wrote: | Storeylf, yes it does, I have a published command note on the subject.
It works like this:
Declare hellbores and phasers, with directed targeting.
ETA: This can't be resolved as one volley because hellbores cannot use directed targeting. These are split into two volleys.
Resolve phasers first. This will ding the shield.
Then resolve the hellbores. At this point, you determine which shield is weakest. |
I beg to differ, but your command note (which I haven't seen) isn't in line with this clarification by MWest. Have I missed a further ruling on this? What you are suggesting was my first thought when the split volley rule was introduced, but it was clarified to not allow that.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Steve Robinson wrote:
In example #2, since the damage to the #1 shield was from 2 volleys, could the firing player decide to have the volley from the phaser resolved first in an attempt to reduce the #1 shield to the "weakest"? |
No. The weakest shield determination is made before applying any damage from the volleys from a single ship. |
| Quote: | The issue is that having the phasers and hellbores be divided into separate volleys is an artificial mechanism introduced to not penalize the ability to use directed damage just because hellbores are fired normally. Adding in this exception does not mean that it should be used to give even more advantage to this situation.
Therefore, regardless of whether the phasers are fired in directed mode or not, the weakest shield is determined prior to that "double-volley" exception. Doing otherwise will instead advantage hellbores even more than they already are. (And believe me, hellbores do not need any more advantages.) |
This was why I was careful in my wording in my first post above, using the terms fire from a ship where phasers were concerned.
PS I'm rather partial to Hydrans, so making sure I'm using the correct ruling on this is significant to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storeylf wrote: | | I beg to differ, but your command note (which I haven't seen) isn't in line with this clarification by MWest. Have I missed a further ruling on this? What you are suggesting was my first thought when the split volley rule was introduced, but it was clarified to not allow that. |
Yes, according to that ruling directed fire can never ding a shield.
| mjwest wrote: | | Steve Robinson wrote: | | In example #2, since the damage to the #1 shield was from 2 volleys, could the firing player decide to have the volley from the phaser resolved first in an attempt to reduce the #1 shield to the "weakest"? |
No. The weakest shield determination is made before applying any damage from the volleys from a single ship. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terryoc
Captain
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK that seems to have made my command note illegal.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scoutdad
Commodore
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4754
Location: Middle Tennessee
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| terryoc wrote: | | OK that seems to have made my command note illegal. |
that's OK Terry... been there, done that. 
I had a rule revision effectively disallow an early Command Note as well.
Maybe we should start a club... 
_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
