Question on damaging XO

Home of discussions about Ultra Starfire (5th edition) and its predecessor Galactic Starfire (4th edition).

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby procyon on Tue 26 Jul 2011 07:16

Elminster wrote:What you really see on an enemy control sheet isn't "This Laser" or "This Kinetic". You see "This Odd SRW" respectively "This Odd LRW". At least unless you have the same weapons available for yourself. So, determining a missile on an XO as a specific version, you have to have this technology available, otherwise you only see "This is a BIG missile", but a Rh is a BIG missile, too. The weapons on XO are not active, so you can not discern the missiles. An EDM (size 3) looks identical to an ADM (size 3).


The only time active/inactive is an issue is if you are scanning a shields down unit, not a unit you have tractored.
Per D5.03.3.2 a tractored 'shields down' unit must allow the tractoring player to see that unit's control sheet, if asked.

No where does this state that you only get to know it is a weapon, or an engine, or etc but not what type. It says 'unit's control sheet' - period. And we have always ruled that if you can tell what systems are on the inside of the hull, you can definitely see the ordinace mounted on the outside.


Elminster wrote:BTW2: You will destroy XO as a side effect of non-shield damage. The question is: Can collateral damage be specific?


Cralis wrote:Either way, the rules state that he can do internal damage to cause a loaded XO rack to be destroyed, but does not state that he can choose which one. I'm split on the fence on whether or not it should be allowed... I'd like to hear other opinions.


Now I admit to a dated rule set, but my rules in Appendix AA under XO.03 states that "each non shield NON PRECISION weapon" (my emphasis, not the rules) destroys an XO rack and ordinance. An Lpa, or any precision weapon is specifically excluded by this rule. When just firing without specific targeting this makes sense. A little hole in the ship probably didn't find one of the items mounted on the large surface area. But with specific targeting, this logic isn't quite as true.

So although the Lpa may take out an internal system (on the previous turn it took out the datalink), it can't do anything to external ordinance under the current rules even if it is allowed to see exactly what is on them.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby Elminster on Tue 26 Jul 2011 08:09

procyon wrote:Now I admit to a dated rule set, but my rules in Appendix AA under XO.03 states that "each non shield NON PRECISION weapon" (my emphasis, not the rules) destroys an XO rack and ordinance.

I know you mentioned outdated ruleset, but please check again. My rule states "damage" not "weapon".
In memory of Gary Gygax
In memory of Leonard Nimoy
In memory of Christopher Lee

In memory of Albert Einstein
E = MC^2 + 1d10
User avatar
Elminster
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2046
Joined: Tue 22 Jun 2010 00:54
Location: Ganderkesee, Germany

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby Cralis on Tue 26 Jul 2011 20:33

procyon wrote:The only time active/inactive is an issue is if you are scanning a shields down unit, not a unit you have tractored. Per D5.03.3.2 a tractored 'shields down' unit must allow the tractoring player to see that unit's control sheet, if asked.

No where does this state that you only get to know it is a weapon, or an engine, or etc but not what type. It says 'unit's control sheet' - period. And we have always ruled that if you can tell what systems are on the inside of the hull, you can definitely see the ordinace mounted on the outside.


No where in the rules does it say you can know how many crew, munitions carried, cargo, or munitions on XO racks either. And in the letter of Section A, "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot." And that is my ruling on this.

It will be clarified as such in the next version, and will only be superseded by tech MUCH higher than we normally play.

Cralis wrote:Either way, the rules state that he can do internal damage to cause a loaded XO rack to be destroyed, but does not state that he can choose which one. I'm split on the fence on whether or not it should be allowed... I'd like to hear other opinions.


Now I admit to a dated rule set, but my rules in Appendix AA under XO.03 states that "each non shield NON PRECISION weapon" (my emphasis, not the rules) destroys an XO rack and ordinance. An Lpa, or any precision weapon is specifically excluded by this rule. When just firing without specific targeting this makes sense. A little hole in the ship probably didn't find one of the items mounted on the large surface area. But with specific targeting, this logic isn't quite as true.


You are correct. I didn't say "internal precision damage", although in context I can see why you thought I meant that. I was talking about non-precision internal damage.

Specific targeting does not allow you to target munitions on XO racks - at least, not at this time. I would guesstimate that you won't see something like this until SL30 or so.

So although the Lpa may take out an internal system (on the previous turn it took out the datalink), it can't do anything to external ordinance under the current rules even if it is allowed to see exactly what is on them.


Correct.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11158
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby Cralis on Tue 26 Jul 2011 20:34

Elminster wrote:
procyon wrote:Now I admit to a dated rule set, but my rules in Appendix AA under XO.03 states that "each non shield NON PRECISION weapon" (my emphasis, not the rules) destroys an XO rack and ordinance.

I know you mentioned outdated ruleset, but please check again. My rule states "damage" not "weapon".


Current and next revision says:

Each non-shield non-precision damage point destroys 1 XO rack in addition to any other system(s) damaged. The ship’s owner chooses which XO rack to destroy, but he must choose loaded XO racks before
empty ones.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11158
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby procyon on Wed 27 Jul 2011 23:29

Elminster wrote:I know you mentioned outdated ruleset, but please check again. My rule states "damage" not "weapon".



Oops. That is what I get for posting while visiting at my mother's house. I just can't seem to talk and type at the same time and keep it all straight. Yah, a 'non-shield weapon' would pretty much be all of them.... :oops:



Cralis wrote:procyon wrote:
The only time active/inactive is an issue is if you are scanning a shields down unit, not a unit you have tractored. Per D5.03.3.2 a tractored 'shields down' unit must allow the tractoring player to see that unit's control sheet, if asked.

No where does this state that you only get to know it is a weapon, or an engine, or etc but not what type. It says 'unit's control sheet' - period. And we have always ruled that if you can tell what systems are on the inside of the hull, you can definitely see the ordinace mounted on the outside.

No where in the rules does it say you can know how many crew, munitions carried, cargo, or munitions on XO racks either. And in the letter of Section A, "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot." And that is my ruling on this.

It will be clarified as such in the next version, and will only be superseded by tech MUCH higher than we normally play.


We don't list off how many crew (although if you see Qv on a carrier it is a fair bet they are carrying the replacement crews), or how many missiles/torpedoes and what type they are, or what is in the cargo holds (but this was my next question the wife wants answered...). And yes, it says that if it doesn't say - you can't. But we can't find anywhere that gives an exact definition of what the 'control sheet' includes. We have just always listed off ordinance on the XOs with them on the control sheet. And as I said it just made sense if you could see everything on the inside of the hull you should be able to see what is on the outside.

We will probably do some house ruling on this one - on the lines of 'you can target one internal system or external munition' for us. Don't think shooting an XO munition instead of a system will be to unbalancing. If it is I will post such here.

Otherwise thank you for the assistance, and I apologize for my typo. :)
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby procyon on Thu 08 Dec 2011 02:22

procyon wrote:We will probably do some house ruling on this one - on the lines of 'you can target one internal system or external munition' for us. Don't think shooting an XO munition instead of a system will be to unbalancing. If it is I will post such here.


For those that might be interested.
We haven't exactly put this one through the wringer much, as the situations it occurs in are just so infrequent. The main abuser of precision weapons was drakar and he isn't in the current games. But we did find one occurence that cemented our group's opinion on this rule.

We have decided the the precision weapons can target an XO mounted item.

This was due to an occasion where a precision weapon armed ship (commerce raider type - designed to take out FTs without destroying them) snagged a small escort (CT) that had a single laser mounted internally, and another laser mounted as an XOB. We decided then that we couldn't justify that the commerce raider could take out the internal weapon easily, but was going to have to destroy all of the CT's engines to take out the XOB. So we ruled that you could target the XO ordinance if you choose to. We also ruled that if you were going to do multiple points that you could only destroy one XO item and the rest of the damage had to be distributed internally - but that is just a house rule to make us happy.

Thought I would pass on what we had stumbled across.

EDIT

We have also discussed and (mostly) decided that the precision weapon can target smcft loaded in the XOs, taking out one XOs worth (3DPs) in a shot for a sqn, or one smcft for individual smcft (ie. ast).
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby Elminster on Thu 08 Dec 2011 02:30

procyon wrote:We decided then that we couldn't justify that the commerce raider could take out the internal weapon easily, but was going to have to destroy all of the CT's engines to take out the XOB.

You don't have to.

Just switch the precision weapon to non-precision mode, then the first point of non-shield damage will automatically destroy the XOB.
In memory of Gary Gygax
In memory of Leonard Nimoy
In memory of Christopher Lee

In memory of Albert Einstein
E = MC^2 + 1d10
User avatar
Elminster
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2046
Joined: Tue 22 Jun 2010 00:54
Location: Ganderkesee, Germany

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby procyon on Thu 08 Dec 2011 02:37

Elminster wrote:You don't have to.

Just switch the precision weapon to non-precision mode, then the first point of non-shield damage will automatically destroy the XOB.


I don't know of the rule for switching precision weapons to non-precision mode unless it is a variable weapon.

The commerce raider was a FG with a pair of Epa.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby Elminster on Thu 08 Dec 2011 03:36

procyon wrote:
Elminster wrote:You don't have to.

Just switch the precision weapon to non-precision mode, then the first point of non-shield damage will automatically destroy the XOB.


I don't know of the rule for switching precision weapons to non-precision mode unless it is a variable weapon.

The commerce raider was a FG with a pair of Epa.

My wording was not very precise (pun intended). If you are not able to apply precision damage the damage will be recorded as "normal" weapon damage. The advantage of variable weapons is that you can switch between the normal WEAPON and the precision WEAPON. The normal weapon always has superior range and damage values.

Äh, checking the table at D4.01.1E all precision weapons ALWAYS do precision damage of some sort... :?

Does this mean that precision weapons NEVER damage XO at all? :?:

If so, procyon, you were right all along.

Can we get a confirmation from the Masters-At-Rules?
In memory of Gary Gygax
In memory of Leonard Nimoy
In memory of Christopher Lee

In memory of Albert Einstein
E = MC^2 + 1d10
User avatar
Elminster
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2046
Joined: Tue 22 Jun 2010 00:54
Location: Ganderkesee, Germany

Re: Question on damaging XO

Postby krenshala on Thu 08 Dec 2011 18:23

I personally like procyon's house rule for precision weapons targetting XO mounted items (munitions, or smallcraft/AP). Matt (or Marvin) would know better on the specific rules.
-- krenshala
None survive the harvest!

Yeah, I'm finally back (again)! Sometimes, life (and 13yo son's) don't leave you time to play SF and earn a paycheck. :/

No, really! Matt actually made me an admin here!
krenshala
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:13
Location: Austin TX, NorAm, Sol III

PreviousNext

Return to Ultra Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron