Multifire procedure and other questions

[Angry_Cartman]

Can someone plz help me out?

I just want to confirm I understand Spacedock's multifire rules correctly.

you can EITHER fire several beam arrays at ONE shot each OR fire a single array with several shots, up to it's multifire rating; all this without a multiple action penalty.

So, counting as ONE single action and thus incurring no penalty, a weapons officer could EITHER fire the same array say 4 times OR achieve the same effect by firing 4 arrays ONCE.

IF one were to fire, say, 2 arrays once and then a third array 3 times, THEN this would count as two actions incurring a -1 penalty.

Also,
assuming you have a ship at full shield capacity; ALL the incoming fire, regardless of where it comes from, is treated with the "25% of base damage" rule; only the shot that carries the lowest base damage is applied fully.

So, if a Galaxy class ship is attacked by say one Galor class ship and 2 Dominion attack fighters -all on its fore shield- the lowest shot coming from the 3 ships does its full damage (ex: a torp coming from the Galor at 200 pts), then all subsequent shots are counted at 25% (say, 2 more torps from the Galor and a couple of Spiral-wave shots, and a few more Polaron shots from the 2 Dominion fighters).

The only exception to this is the Wolfpacking rule. With the Wolfpacking rule, the Galor's first torp would do full damage, but so would both first Polaron shots from the Dominion attack fighters.


Lastly, I have a question about bonuses. The bonuses listed for the use of equipment like sensors affect the number of attribute dice rolled NOT an overall bonus; so if a sensor array is rated at +2, the player rolls 2 extra dice and NOT meaning he simply adds a +2 bonus to his roll.
BUT things like TATTS (sp?) or the manoeuvres listed DO confer an overall bonus on the final result of the roll. For instance, if an attack manoeuvre gives a +3 bonus, than 3 is simply added to the final result.

Does that sound right?

If so, I'm having a hard time telling when its say +2 DICE or a +2 overall bonus; it's confusing. When its a +2 DICE bonus, I would have written it as something like : +2D
... if I get all of this right

[Steve Long]

I just want to confirm I understand Spacedock's multifire rules correctly.

you can EITHER fire several beam arrays at ONE shot each OR fire a single array with several shots, up to it's multifire rating; all this without a multiple action penalty.

So, counting as ONE single action and thus incurring no penalty, a weapons officer could EITHER fire the same array say 4 times OR achieve the same effect by firing 4 arrays ONCE.

Yes, that's correct. What we're talking about here is what's called, in HERO System terms at least , a "special effect." The game effect of what you're doing -- how many dice of damage it does, and the modifiers to hit, etc. -- is defined by the rules. But what it looks like is up to you. Make it look however you think it's the most dramatic. If you think it looks coolest to all come from one array, do that; if it looks better with one shot each from multiple arrays, do that. However you wanna visualize it is cool.

Keep in mind that you don't suffer a Multiple Action Penalty for Multifiring because you're not performing multiple actions -- you're performing one action that just happens to cause a weapon or weapons to fire at a target or targets multiple times. The tradeoff for not suffering the penalty may be reduced damage. The tradeoff for making all the shots individually is they do more damage (to a single target, at least), but you suffer penalties to hit 'em because taking multiple individual shots is performing multiple actions.

IF one were to fire, say, 2 arrays once and then a third array 3 times, THEN this would count as two actions incurring a -1 penalty.

Typically, yes, that's correct. OTOH, if, visually speaking, you want to define your Multifire as appearing the way you describe, I don't see why you couldn't.

Also,
assuming you have a ship at full shield capacity; ALL the incoming fire, regardless of where it comes from, is treated with the "25% of base damage" rule; only the shot that carries the lowest base damage is applied fully.

So, if a Galaxy class ship is attacked by say one Galor class ship and 2 Dominion attack fighters -all on its fore shield- the lowest shot coming from the 3 ships does its full damage (ex: a torp coming from the Galor at 200 pts), then all subsequent shots are counted at 25% (say, 2 more torps from the Galor and a couple of Spiral-wave shots, and a few more Polaron shots from the 2 Dominion fighters).

The only exception to this is the Wolfpacking rule. With the Wolfpacking rule, the Galor's first torp would do full damage, but so would both first Polaron shots from the Dominion attack fighters.

No. As the rules note on page 118, Multifire "is a way for one ship to fire multiple times at a single or multiple targets." The 25% rule applies when one ship Multifires at a single target. Note also the text on page 119, which specifically states that "Shots from multiple ships, even if directed at the same target in the same round, do not count as Multifire."

If multiple ships attack a single target, each ship does its full damage to that target. Multiple ships' attacks on a single target do not constitute Multifire, because each ship is rolling to hit with its attack separately.

The "Wolfpacking" maneuver allows multiple ships to combine their shots against a single target and make them a Multifire. I am probably going to rewrite this in the next iteration of the book; as it stands I don't think it offers much benefit in most situations.

Lastly, I have a question about bonuses. The bonuses listed for the use of equipment like sensors affect the number of attribute dice rolled NOT an overall bonus; so if a sensor array is rated at +2, the player rolls 2 extra dice and NOT meaning he simply adds a +2 bonus to his roll.

BUT things like TATTS (sp?) or the manoeuvres listed DO confer an overall bonus on the final result of the roll. For instance, if an attack manoeuvre gives a +3 bonus, than 3 is simply added to the final result.

Does that sound right?

If so, I'm having a hard time telling when its say +2 DICE or a +2 overall bonus; it's confusing. When its a +2 DICE bonus, I would have written it as something like : +2D

I am pretty specific about bonuses and penalties in the book. They are almost always described as modifiers to Test Results. Thus, if you are using a maneuver that provides a +2 benefit, and your Shipboard Systems Test gives you a Test Result of 8, you bump that up to 10.

If a bonus provides extra dice, that is going to be specifically noted. If you check carefully, you should almost always, if not always, see modifiers specifically described as applying to Test Results. If you have a question about a specific modifier that you can't figure out, I'd be glad to explain it to you if you like.

On sensor Tests -- you are misreading the text. The text specifically states on page 49 (and in the Sensors Tables) that the bonuses provided by a sensor's gain rating are Test Result bonuses, not bonus dice. The same goes for bonuses provided by pumping extra Power to the sensors.

Clear as mud now? If not, please post a follow-up!

Steve Long

[Angry_Cartman]

Ah! Thank you very much; being answered is great enough, but by the very same person who authored such a great book, it's awesome!

I went back to the books and I think I have a firm grasp now of the concepts. Should have read more thoroughly!

Regarding the issue where several ships attack a single ship; I would find that it's a great way to quickly lower a shield. I mean, take a trio of B'rel scouts, make them launch a few torps each and BHAM! at least 600 pts are off the shield! I'm not necesarily saying it's a bad thing; I'm making an observation. At times I think it would be a good idea to make ALL incoming fire to a given shield be only 25% of base damage. For instance, in "Way of the Warrior", that huge Klingon fleet had a hard time against DS9 on its own. Now if I use the LUG mechanics, the DS9 shields would have withered pretty quickly (unless a future SRM shows a DS9 station with 10,000 pts shields )

While we're speaking on such matters, could you plz share your opinion about the ST setting and wargaming rules? I'm asking because I once tried to come up with a set of rules for a ST space combat game. I almost went nuts trying to come up with a system that would be balanced, fun and that would sustain the inconsistencies we see on screen (ie a ship taking 10 torp hits one week and exploding after 1 single hit the week later) AND try to fit in the info from the tech manuals. For instance, the fights we see on screen are always within beam range, yet the tech manuals give torps far greater range; so if we go strictly by the tech manuals, ships should logically slug it out at long range, but that obviously doesn't fit what we see on screen. I figured that not engaging in torp fights was not because of philosophical reasons, but rather practicality. I gave torps the same range increments as beam, but at 300,000km+, it becomes almost impossible to hit anything. So a ship who would like to engage in long-range bombardement with torps would need to fire full spreads in the hope of hitting something; thus very quickly depleting its supply of torps, in a wasteful way.

In any case, IMHO I think I prefer RPG-setting like rules to ST combat than a rigid wargaming system (U there Decipher? ). I think ST ships are too similar relatively speaking to one another to make for proper variety that is customary in wargames. For instance, pretty much all ships have 360 degrees arcs of fire; and weapons are very near-identical from one race to another; most ships can travel at high impulse, etc. In most space opera wargames, you have your heavily armed but slow capital ships; and fast but fragile escorts who can outflank the enemy, etc.

Any thoughts?

[Steve Long]

Well, I think your observations about Trek ship wargaming are pretty much accurate. The problem with turning Trek into a wargame is that the behavior and battles we see in Trek are, generally, not very wargame-like. They're not fought with an extreme degree of what one of my friends calls "tactical awareness." Thus, they don't always translate well into a wargaming context, where the goal is to think with tactical awareness. That's the reason for the beams-versus-torps point you raise.

That said, I do think Trek ship wargaming is possible. One of the Spacedock playtesters even suggested that the book would replace SFB as a Trek ship wargame, if approached properly. (I'm not sure how serious he was, but I took it as a compliment anyway. ) Part of the trick to making a good Trek ship wargame is that, unlike Spacedock and more like LUG's Red Alert! disk game, you have to abandon 100% setting/canon accuracy in favor of greater emphasis on game balance. You have to tinker with weapon ranges, limit ships' firing arcs, and simplify some matters that can get pretty complex in Spacedock.

I'm pretty sure that Decipher's planned Engage! ship wargame product will be an enjoyable and satisfying game, while still reasonably true to Trek canon.

Steve Long

[Angry_Cartman]

I'm pretty sure that Decipher's planned Engage! ship wargame product will be an enjoyable and satisfying game, while still reasonably true to Trek canon.

well, if you ever need playtesters...

One of the Spacedock playtesters even suggested that the book would replace SFB as a Trek ship wargame, if approached properly. (I'm not sure how serious he was, but I took it as a compliment anyway. )

ouch!... I don't want to inflate your ego here , but I consider Spacedock, even though it's not "canon", THE reference in ST ships.

[Steve Long]

Thanx! That's very kind of you to say.

Steve Long