General clarification questions

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

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: General clarification questions

Postby Cralis on Sat 30 Dec 2017 01:33

Pyrite wrote:So given that I recently rolled 'unavoidable war', I'm likely to need to invade a planet soon. To that end, I'm considering pre-training a standing army of Qt. However, looking through the book, I'm having a little trouble comprehending what the cost of maintaining such an army on my homeworld would be, or even if there is such a cost.

The rules in V4.01 seem to only apply to Qt in a combat zone or on a conquered planet. Is there any cost to maintaining Qt outside of those circumstances?


V3.01.2 says that you have to purchase Hv, and that it costs 1 MCr per Hv. What V4.01 tells you is how much Hv a Qt requires, with a link to L7.01.2 for non-invasion maintenance costs (which says it is 1 Hv per 20 Qt).
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Pyrite on Sat 30 Dec 2017 01:45

On another reading of L7.01.2, I think I understand, and understand why I was confused: The note on the table there for Qt maintenance says 'Outside of combat, see [V4.01]', which confused me as that section largely deals with supply in combat.
Pyrite
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 14 Oct 2014 18:09

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Cralis on Sat 30 Dec 2017 03:38

Pyrite wrote:On another reading of L7.01.2, I think I understand, and understand why I was confused: The note on the table there for Qt maintenance says 'Outside of combat, see [V4.01]', which confused me as that section largely deals with supply in combat.


WHOOPS. I'm marking that as a fix right now. It should say that it's for combat maintenance at that link...
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Pyrite on Tue 02 Jan 2018 13:19

Now I've encountered a Maser nebula, and on reviewing the rules I felt a need to ask: is there any good reason to mount MNE on any unit in the nebula that could mount shields instead, given that the shields will just regenerate the energy damage a short while after taking it?

Edit: wait, nevermind, just saw the section on nebulas. No shield regeneration and full energy damage makes that idea nonviable.
Pyrite
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 14 Oct 2014 18:09

Re: on Nebulas

Postby Lomn on Tue 02 Jan 2018 15:10

While on the subject of nebulas, note also P1.06: no broadbeam comms in any nebula, and reduced tightbeam comm ranges in most. Only 1 tH comm range in a Maser. Similarly, the Sensor Table in EE notes sensor generation penalties in nebulas.

Maser nebs are hellholes.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Cralis on Wed 03 Jan 2018 01:55

And I am going to add that once you start equipping MNE, maser nebula are not a big deal to your ships. They are, however, a total pain in the butt because they interrupt the CFN. You have to create a Dangerous System Pool (L4.10.5) so that you can use the CFN to move goods through the system.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Pyrite on Wed 03 Jan 2018 16:22

In the vein of asking about things that I've recently encountered while exploring, I found a system with an asteroid belt warp point. We ruled that while my tiny probe ship was destroyed immediately on impact, its omega drone was launched and came back through the warp point with roughly enough data to tell us what happened (Though no information on the system).

So first of all, I was curious if that ruling was correct according to the rules as written and intended, and second, I was curious about whether tractors or pressers might be an option for sanitizing a warp point, and what that would look like.

Also, an unrelated question: What is the tightbeam range of AP-c?
Pyrite
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 14 Oct 2014 18:09

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Lomn on Wed 03 Jan 2018 21:11

Dealing with asteroid WPs:
via Tractor: rule W5.05.7.2. T×Speed/10. Speed 4 (assuming Ic-types for dedicated clear vessels) means 250 T. FT4s have 20 HS to play with, so 25 can do the job with Tb, and those are soap-bubble designs. Ouch.

via weapons: rule GG4. Ka×4 at range 2-3 (say, mounted in a BS) will provide enough damage (12600 per Ka per month) to clear the initial field in a month. Ka×1 is sufficient to maintain a clear WP thereafter. Ka×2 is a reasonable middle ground; it clears in 3 months and maintains thereafter for pretty cheap. Ke×1 clears in 4 and maintains. But with K, a BS1 with Ka×1 (BS0 is too small to mount any K) plus a K-equipped warship to do the initial clear keeps things tidy.
OTOH, Pte×2 will clear things in a month, but that needs 300 Mg of reloads for the shot volume -- as the rules note, this is unwieldy.
You can also use beams, but K and the triple damage is where it's at for efficiency. Fa (4800 damage per Fa per month at range 2) needs 11 beams to clear in one month, 5 to clear in 3, 2 to maintain. Fb (7200) is 7 to clear in 1, 3 in 3, 1 maintain.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Cralis on Thu 04 Jan 2018 01:33

Pyrite wrote:In the vein of asking about things that I've recently encountered while exploring, I found a system with an asteroid belt warp point. We ruled that while my tiny probe ship was destroyed immediately on impact, its omega drone was launched and came back through the warp point with roughly enough data to tell us what happened (Though no information on the system).


WP in asteroid belt is an anomaly and the rules are at W5.05.7 ... given the rules, it probably took more damage than it had HTK and was completely destroyed.

Right now according to D2.06.2 the omega buoy or drone is always launched. We've never really formulated rules for how to prevent that, but it has been suggested that if you can do more than HTK*x damage to the ship in 1 tactical turn the buoy/drone doesn't fire. x has been an elusive number, however, with suggestions typically ranging from x=2 to x=10. Either way, it will likely only affect smaller ships...

So first of all, I was curious if that ruling was correct according to the rules as written and intended, and second, I was curious about whether tractors or pressers might be an option for sanitizing a warp point, and what that would look like.


Yes... W5.05.7.2 describes how this works.

Also, an unrelated question: What is the tightbeam range of AP-c?


viewtopic.php?f=61&t=1528&p=25301

There is the official errata, and if you look about halfway down you'll see the missing "small unit" row for the P2.03 tightbeam range chart. You'll see that we have a "*" marker that says AP-c uses the (CC) column for small units (which is 1 LM).
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: General clarification questions

Postby Pyrite on Sat 06 Jan 2018 17:57

So we just ran into some remnant units. Do automated remnant units have the same readiness states as normal units?
Pyrite
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 14 Oct 2014 18:09

PreviousNext

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests