Hi, I just got myself a hardcopy version of the SpaceDock rules for Star Trek and have one simple concern that I can't seem to dismiss as I am reading through it:
Single Phaser or Torpedo hits seem to do too much damage.
Let's say: a ship has threshold 300 and gets hit by a type X phaser and a type II torpedo for 400 damage; 100 damage leaks through and affects systems! What with specific system SU totals looking like between 12 and 75, in one round, WITHOUT disabling the vessels shields, those 2 hits could knock out potentially THREE different systems! That seems like a lot for a shot that didn't even break the target's shields!
Anyhow, I can't seem to digest the rest of spacedock until I get this one seemingly simple thing straightened out. I would greatly appreciate any feedback you guys have to offer. Thanks.
1) You can't use two different weapon systems in a single attack. Firing more than one weapon in one attack is covered by the multifire rules: Page 118, "However, if a ship uses multiple weapon systems to Multifire, those systems must be the same type of weapon."
In your example the ship would be hit by two attacks for 200 damage each, but one after the other and not simultaneously, i.e. you apply 200 damage and again 200 damage - not 400.
2) If you execute a Multifire the damages aren't simpley added. This is described in detail on p. 119-120.
3) Damage that exceeds Threshold and/or Sielhd Protection isn't applied to the ship's systems in full. Either you apply 100% of the damage to the "superstructure" of the ship (SU of the ship, disregarding system damage) or 10% to systems and the rest (90%) goes to the superstructurre. What rules to use depends entirely on the Narrators decision. If he uses the Damage Location Tables the later method is used, if not damage goes to the ship's overall SU only.
So if for example 100 points of damage penetrate the shields you either subtract 100 from the ship SU or 10 from a system and 90 from the overall SU.
It's on page 137 ("Applying the damage").
Once again, Lancer I have to thank you for answering my question, I realised after you posted that indeed the rules that I was looking for were on page 137 and my post was simply a result of my ignorance in not fully exploring the extensive table of contents and book interior.
Reply With Quote
.
