Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Shield burnthroughclarification please
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Hod K'el
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Lafayette LA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kang...I like it! Good explanation with viability! I will consider this as sacred text...sort of...well, just good s#!t to read!

And thanks!
_________________
HoD K'el
IMV Black Dagger
-----------------
Life is not victory;
Death is not defeat!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1371

PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Hod K'el, some ships have armour because that was what was used before the invention of shields. Ships like the Federation old light cruiser and the Romulan War Eagle/King Eagle are in fact refitted versions of much older ships, which retain the armour because it's not worth removing it. Some other units have armour to reflect general toughness, like the battle station and Planet Killer. PK is made of neutronium, and very tough.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
"Penetrating" means that it causes internal damage.

So, ten points done to a ten point shield means that burn-through is done, resulting in nine boxes to the shield (leaving one box) and one point of burn-through internal damage.

Waking this thread up because of an argument at our last play session.

A ship with armor was struck with damage such that, using batteries, the player was able to cause the shield to drop with one internal.

Example: Ship has 22 shields, 5 armor, 3 batteries and ample remaining energy. It is struck for 24 points of damage. Player uses 1 battery to reduce the damage to 23.

In this case his argument was that he did NOT take burn through because burn through only occurs when the shield is not penetrated. (It was, in fact, penetrated.) He further argued that the 1 remaining point would be taken on armor because while burnthrough bypasses armor, that 1 point of damage was a internal, not burn.

Relevant rules sections:
"(3C8) Shield Burnthrough.
If any volley consists of at least ten points but does not penetrate a shield, ... Note that Burn Through damage bypasses ar- mor (3D1)."

(3D1) ARMOR
.... Any damage that penetrates the shields is scored first on this armor regardless of the direction from which the damage came. All of the armor must be disabled before any damage can be allocated to the ship itself. This does not include the effects of
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:53 am    Post subject: continued Reply with quote

<previous post was truncated>
...This does not include the effects of Any damage that penetrates the shields is scored first on this armor regardless of the direction from which the damage came. All of the armor must be disabled before any damage can be allocated to the ship itself. This does not include the effects of burn through (3C8) which bypass armor.

Now I personally think this is a silly interpretation but the logic is consistent with the rules:

The shield was penetrated. Therefore no burn through.
The 1 extra point of damage should be scored on armor because it is not a "burn through" and therefore does not bypass the armor.

Obviously, however, what this causes is a situation where if the damage is around the amount that it can take down the shield but (with or without a little reinforcement) cannot penetrate the armor then the ship takes no meaningful hits.

Is this the intent?
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kinshi
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 09 Apr 2011
Posts: 84
Location: Port Orchard, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hod K'el wrote:
Why does burnthrough bypass armor? This just does not make any sense to me, so is there a logical explanation?

My thinking is: I have a shield; I get shot; the shot makes it through the shield; the next thing that gets hit is the armor I put on my ship; if the shot gets through my armor, what damn good is the armor? Good people are getting killed here!


shock damage...

when a vessel gets hit that hard, the entire superstructure is rattled, and stuff breaks loose from its mounts.

Want a prime example, watch Das Boot...and see how the sub gets knocked around by the force of the depth charges, and the damage that occurs despite not being a hit.
_________________
If you are local to the Kitsap, Jefferson, Peirce, Thurston or Mason County area in Western, WA state, feel free to PM me about getting a SFB/FC group going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3442
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

duxvolantis,

Your opponent was correct in his use of the rules.

Since he allowed the shield to fully go down, the single damage point was not burn-through, and the armor would indeed be hit. For the single point of damage to be burn-through, there needed to have been a single shield box left.

Fundamentally, this is a border case. Since there is a distinction between burn-through and normal internal damage, you will have a border case. It is what it is.

Plus, there are trade offs. For example, if your opponent had expended an extra point of power, then two things would have changed: 1) The point of damage would have made it through anyway, and it would be burn-through; 2) There would be a shield box left. While it is the case that the point of internal damage would now skip the armor, it is also the case that the single remaining shield box could still be reinforced. So, having lots of space power that turn could help avoid future internals. It also would prevent any transporter actions. Since he did not do that, the shield is down, you can transport through it (on that impulse, no less), and, if you can line the shield up again, you can fire through the empty shield and he cannot use reinforcement.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay. Thanks for the response.

I had always envisioned the burn-through as damage that happened because the bridge of the enterprise would shake (surely something would get damaged) and then spock would announced deflector shields at 54% Smile

It is a corner case but it does give a ship with lots of batteries and armor a way to avoid a weapon or power hit if it is important.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3442
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, but there are only like two with lots of batteries (WE, KE) and two with (relatively speaking) lots of power (F-CL, KE). So, it isn't like it is all that common. (Well, and larger bases. But then, they need all the help they can get.)

Besides, as I tried to point out, there is a downside to doing it that way. The downside is that the shield is now down, when they could have preserved at least one shield box. Without that last shield box, they are vulnerable to transports (i.e. marine raids) and the shield cannot be reinforced against other volleys. So, there is a trade-off being made.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kirbykibble
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Posts: 82
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

penetrating means the there is internal damage done, and the facing shield is down.
if you do exact damage as the shield, you do the burn through.
_________________
We are the ISC! NO ONE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IT STANDS FOR!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group