Monitor warp/reactor damage

Ask your questions about Federation Commander game system rules here.

Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer

Post Reply
User avatar
Kang
Fleet Captain
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: Devon, UK
Contact:

Monitor warp/reactor damage

Post by Kang »

In the latest Communique, there's this rule Q&A:

"Q: In the case of a monitor, once the warp engines are destroyed, are further warp hits scored on reactors as they are on bases?
A: That is correct, but applies only to monitors."

That's an interesting little rule, and one I don't remember seeing anywhere in the book. Do we have a rulebook reference for that one, please?
Image
User avatar
mike_espo
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:46 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by mike_espo »

Hmmm. Don't recall seeing that in the Reference Rulebook...

Looking at Briefing#2, the SSD for the Light Planetary Monitor, there is no reference to taking Reactors for Warp.

Perhaps in Orion Attack, there is such a rule?
User avatar
Scoutdad
Commodore
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:27 pm
Location: Middle Tennessee

Post by Scoutdad »

Nope. That rule was omitted in the RRB and in OA.

During one of the PBEM games I'm moderating, a Fed Monitor took a minimal amount of damage and due to lack of Warp, exploded in short order. Since they are no where near as fragile as that in SFB, I questioned the allcation of damage and found that the original intent had been to take REAC once Warp was gone.

MJWest posted this in the latest Communique. Presumably it'll be added to the CRUL, and then interegrated into the next edition of the RRB.
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF
User avatar
Kang
Fleet Captain
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: Devon, UK
Contact:

Post by Kang »

Scoutdad wrote:Presumably it'll be added to the CRUL, and then interegrated into the next edition of the RRB.
...or hopefully in a minor upgrade of the present rulebook?
Image
Rog
Ensign
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Post by Rog »

I have had the same problem with q ships. i,e plenty of reactor leftover but not much else. :shock:
User avatar
mjwest
Commodore
Posts: 4103
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Contact:

Post by mjwest »

The difference between Q-ships and Monitors is that Q-ships are hap-hazard ship designs that work like that because that is just how they work, while Monitors are ships designed to look like they do. So, it makes sense that a Q-ship will have a weakness like that and blow up like the freighter they are, while monitors can take damage like the warships they are.
Image
Federation Commander Answer Guy
User avatar
kirbykibble
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:37 am
Location: Earth

Post by kirbykibble »

yes, there is.
the fed com reference rulebook edition #6 has it
according to rule 3D6:
DAMAGE TO BASES
in the case of all bases (starbase, battle station, base stations, mobile base and any-other added later), any "warp" or "impulse" damage points are scored on "reactor" boxes.

technically then, the damage allocation chart would say "any warp" then would e scored on impulse. subsequently, as a result of no more impulse boxes, would be scored on frame damage.
We are the ISC! NO ONE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IT STANDS FOR!!
User avatar
terryoc
Captain
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:46 am

Post by terryoc »

Kirby,

no, "any warp" would be scored on REACTOR. Not impulse. Impulse hits are also scored on reactor. Bases do not have warp engines or impulse engines.
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
Image
Post Reply