Ablative Armour for Fighters

[Captain Leana Craig]

I have a questiion for Don, Doug, Jesse (Uncle Tom Cobbly and his dog )


If a size 2 vessel (runabout, fighter etc) has ablative armour, could the armour be repaired aboard their mother ship, as opposed to at a starbase.

Thank you for your time.

[Don Mappin]

I would say yes. I don't know how feasible having Ablative Armor on a size 2 vessel would be but since there's nothing that says you can't do it; go for it!

A bit more realistic way would be to just trade in the space for structure, although Ablative Armor's main advantage is that it lets you take 10 points of damage (5 for AA, 5 for the first row of structure) without triggering a roll on the system damage chart.

[Captain Leana Craig]

Thanks for the quick response Don.

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
A bit more realistic way would be to just trade in the space for structure, although Ablative Armor's main advantage is that it lets you take 10 points of damage (5 for AA, 5 for the first row of structure) without triggering a roll on the system damage chart.

Wouldn't the space-for-armor trade be prohibited by the ship's structure (i.e., you're not allowed to reduce ship's structure by more than 1/3)?

[Don Mappin]

Doh! I knew I was forgetting something! Yes, Sea Tyger is right--no more than a quarter of your space can be converted to structure which means it takes at least a size 4 vessel to make that trick work.

So Ablative Armor would appear to be your only option at this time.

Getting forgetful in my old age...

[Captain Leana Craig]

Grrr, yet another down check for small vessels, in addition to the weapon restrictions and no benefits for been a small target. Sigh.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Captain Leana Craig
Grrr, yet another down check for small vessels, in addition to the weapon restrictions and no benefits for been a small target. Sigh.

Well we can always hope that the answer to that is "wait for the spaceship book".

[Don Mappin]

Uh no. Anyone stop to think that this might be part of the reason we don't see a lot of small combat vessels in Star Trek? It's an intentional design consideration.

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Uh no. Anyone stop to think that this might be part of the reason we don't see a lot of small combat vessels in Star Trek? It's an intentional design consideration.

And quite a drawback when designing conversions of Maquis ships in CODA, which while small, seemed to pack a serious punch in the episodes... But are coming out differently in CODA...

Although I am considering making these 'field modifications' the exception to the rule, combined with a 'Jury-rigged' negative that doesn't get paid back into structure...
What do people think? Is this an acceptable use of rule fudging? Would you consider this fair in your games?

[pathstrider]

Uh no. Anyone stop to think that this might be part of the reason we don't see a lot of small combat vessels in Star Trek? It's an intentional design consideration

Woo-hoo!!!! (From a GM who is tired of seeing wolf packing smaller ships rule the ICON spacelanes)

And quite a drawback when designing conversions of Maquis ships in CODA, which while small, seemed to pack a serious punch in the episodes...

To be honest, we never really see them up against really big ships - sure, they gave the Danubes a run for their money, but most of the time the Maaquis relied on dirty tricks (Thinking of 'For the Uniform' especially)

What do people think? Is this an acceptable use of rule fudging? Would you consider this fair in your games?

Personally, and I think I said this somewhere else, I think the size requirments on some of the systems should come down for TNG ships - so you can put a type VI phaser on a Danube (The Phaser it has listed on cannon - Well, the DS9 tech manual- sources )

Mark

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by pathstrider

To be honest, we never really see them up against really big ships - sure, they gave the Danubes a run for their money, but most of the time the Maaquis relied on dirty tricks (Thinking of 'For the Uniform' especially)

Not true.

Eddington may have dropped the Defiant with a cascading computer virus. But look at the USS Malinche after Eddingtons group had finished with it.

Dead in space, Warp nacelle venting and battle scarred. So we know that those little vessels can take out an Excelsior class. Thats some serious hardware.

Even taking into account that a Maquis/Starfleet battle is going to be less lethal from both sides than a Cardassian/Maquis fight.

[aelius]

Don't forget the TNG ep "Preemptive Strike". A group of Maquis raiders were crushing a Galor class Cardassian cruiser.
And I like the rules that make smaller ships harder to hit and have carried them over in my campaign.

[pathstrider]

But look at the USS Malinche after Eddingtons group had finished with it.

Yes, an again the Maquis used a trick to lure the ship in (A damaged freighter) and used extensive inside knowledge to disable the ship (They knew exactely where to hit to punch out the Malinche's Gyros).

Again, not what I would call a straight fight.

Mark.

[Imagus]

Referring to the original point - in most game systems, fighters are ablative armour

[Starbuck777]

Hello,

I almost every Star Trek related game fighters & small craft are considered basically useless and the game mechanics are purposely designed so that they are not used. I've heard all kinds of reasons why they are not included...the main one is always you don't see them in the show.

In reality air force can take out capital ships without the ship ever seeing the plane, it delivers its payload to the target. If the ship has counter measures then it will use them. Land, Sea & Air forces all are capable of delivering nuclear strikes...the results are similar, if the nuke reaches its target, it makes a big crater!

Hopefully, fighters will be shown more in the series or movies. I would like to see them in the game.

Thanks