Scenario Queston

[JonPerry]

Regarding scenario 8CM32:Rescue the Supply Tug.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... que-44.pdf

By the setup, the Klinks start 26 hexes in direction D from the planet.
The tug starts one hex from the planet - presumbaly on the direction A side, so 27 hexes from the Klinks. The scenario doesn't give a facing for the tug, so presumably the Feds choose direction A.

Location map, disengage if you can get 25 hexes from the planet.

Turn 1,
Klinks move a full 32 hexes in direction A, looking to close the distance ASAP. They end 6 hexes "north" of the planet.
Tug sets a baseline speed of 8, accelerates every impulse, moves a total of 16 hexes in Direction A. It ends 17 hexes "north" of the planet, with the Klinks 11 hexes behind it, closing fast.
End of the turn, tug announces EM starting impulse one of next turn.
Also at the end of the turn, Klinks open fire - but at 11 hex range and not a lot of remaining, they won't even drop the tug's facing shield.

Turn 2
Tug has 21 usable power plus 2 batteries (remember that the special scenario rule robs it of 15 point of power from one of its engines). Tug can use these 23 points of power to have a baseline speed of 8, accelerate every impulse, and pay 6 for EM.
Klinks declare base speed 24. (if they declare 16, even with acceleration the best they could do would be to get to range 3 by the end of the turn. So maybe they do that instead? I don't think it matters)

By the end of the turn, the tug will be much more than 25 hexes from the planet (around 33 hexes). Which means it will disengage at the end of turn 2 unless the Klilnks can kill/capture it by the end of impulse 8. The Klinks cannot actually capture it, because you can't board a ship doing EM. They can't tractor it and stop the disengagement, because you can't tractor a ship under EM. That leaves them with trying to kill it. 2 D6 battlecruisers, one of which has a poor crew, having already used at least 24 points for movement, and under a +2 firing penalty due to enemy EM, cannot destroy an intact Fed tug with a cargo pod in a single volley.

This seems to be the easist and most obvious thing for the Tug to do. I don't see how the Klinks can stop it from disengaging. Klink victory conditions are to capture or kill the tug, and from what I see is is not possible to do either.

All of this is without even talking about the Fed NCL that is in the scenario.

SO....I must be missing something. I'm sure this would have been the first thing a Fed playtester would have tried.

What am I missing?

(by my math, I think the Tug can actually EM on both turn one and turn tow...)

[gar1138]

It is one of the scenarios I really like (from SFB, that is). Check out this thread for my comments and concerns on it: http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... php?t=2332

Garrett

[JonPerry]

Glad to see that someone else sees exactly what I'm seeing.

Not so glad to see that nobody could tell us what we're missing.

Perhaps we aren't missing anything and it is simply flawed.

[terryoc]

The Tug's warp drive is messed up, even if it does disengage, where will it go to? It must stop to repair its warp drive, and then the Klinks will find it again and the situation will repeat until the Klingons are driven off for good, which will only happen by blowing one of them up. Note the "mission" rule for the Federation: force the Klingons to disengage. Disengaging the tug may prevent a Klingon victory by the letter of the scenario rule, but not the spirit.

If you want to close that loophole, just add a special rule: if the Tug disengages before its warp engine is repaired, it is considered destroyed.

Edit: If the Tug does disengage, what do you think of the Klingons' chances of capturing the NCL?

[Mike]

IMHO, tugs, especially those carrying pods, should not be allowed to use evasive maneuvers. That seems to make sense considering how much mass the ship would be having to tote around and would take care of the seeming loophole in this particular scenario. Some will say that the mass of a dreadnought or battleship might approach or even be greater than a tug with a pod, but the pods would not be exactly "warp field dynamic" (similar to aerodynamic).

The Klinks seem to be at a disadvantage position-wise, but they are at an advantage strength-wise. One of the D6's will have to tractor the tug to keep it from escaping.

[Kang]

One of the D6's will have to tractor the tug to keep it from escaping.

This would have to be done before it begins EM, otherwise it's a no-no.

[gar1138]

One of the D6's will have to tractor the tug to keep it from escaping.

This would have to be done before it begins EM, otherwise it's a no-no.

Yes, evasive maneuvers create a hole in this scenario (as they do in a lot of scenarios, IMHO). Once you go evasive, you are immune to transporters and tractors, two keys to this scenario. We always play that the tug cannot use evasive maneuvers at all (perhaps due to the delicate cargo it's carrying?).

Also, the acceleration rules from SFB are key to this scenario (which sadly don't exist in FC). We create a custom scenario rule which is that once the tug repairs it's malfunction, it can only go speed 8 the first turn, 16 the second, 24 the third (and it can't go faster than speed 8 without acceleration before the malfunction is repaired). This seems to very closely approximate the scenario design.

Garrett

[mjwest]

Yes, unfortunately, when some scenarios are translated from SFB to FC, things like this get missed. It is extremely disappointing when this happens in scenarios in published products (like in, say, Klingon Attack). On the other hand, any scenario published in Communique or Captain's Log is (at least functionally) a playtest scenario. If you find scenarios that are broken, please report it by submitting playtest reports on them. They are very helpful when the scenario is later used in a formal product.

(And, for that matter, please report any broken scenarios in formal products, too. Those rulebooks are occasionally updated, and they are all to eventually be collected together in the Reference Scenario Book. It would be a good thing to at least have fixes in that [where needed].)

[JonPerry]

Not immediately seeing a place on the forums to lodge such a playtest report.

I looked here
http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... test.shtml
thinking that the playtest page would have a link for playtest reports (or something similar), but didn't find anything.

How/where do we send such a report, and is there a format?

Thanks.

[mjwest]

Fair questions.

Generally playtest reports can be done in a general format describing what happened and what you think the issue is. If you have any specific conclusions, I recommend adding them as pure "line items". Line items are specific items with specific actions. An example of a line item is:

(8C99e) I recommend that a special scenario rule specify that the tug cannot use evasive maneuvers, as this guarantees Klingon failure. - Mike West 19-01-11

Obviously, you would use your name and whatever the date is. (I got in the habit of using "military" style date as that is what they like. "Normal" style dates work, too.)

Whether done in a line item format or not, always include your real name, the date, and the scenario/rule number in the report. Identifying this as a playtest report in the email subject helps, too.

Then, send these to Steve's email address which is design @ starfleetgames . com (without the spaces, of course).

[terryoc]

Another possible change is to give the tug two pods. That increases the tug's move cost by 50%, making it impossible for it to run at high speed under EM, but no harder to capture. (It is harder to kill though).