Particle and Energy/Ray Shields

shootingwomprats · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:25 pm Post subject: Particle and Energy/Ray Shields

Per SER&E p.126 explains that shields come in two varieties doing different things. This leads me to believe that all ships carry both types of shields.

Particle Shields: deflect all sorts of physical objects, including asteroids, missiles and proton torpedoes. They are used at all times, except when a ship launches fighters, missiles or torpedoes. When a ship lowers its particle shields, reduce its hull code by -2D (a ship that loses its main power generator also loses its particle shields).

Energy/Ray Shields: are normally activated only in combat, and must cover a specific fire arcs to be effective in combat.

p.127 states that, "Shields cannot protect a ship from ion cannon damage."

My questions are:

1. Do you think is can be inferred that all ships (ie TIE/in which do NOT have energy shields) have at least particle shields?
2. When ion cannons fire on a ship should the hull soak be modified by -2D?
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter

DougRed4 · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:24 pm Post subject:

1) I think TIEs probably have particle shields, but not energy/ray shields.

2) I don't believe it should be modified.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green

Methedor · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:08 pm Post subject:

I have had similar questions before myself. For instance if a ship (say Hull 3D) with no shields gets a shield generator then its get's disabled would it suddenly have Hull 3D - 2D = 1D? Or by the token of Particle shields would the Hull 3D Become Hull 5D (Hull 3D +2D from particle shielding)

Q 1) I have always thought that the Ray Shields and Particle Shields were apart of the same Generator. Now a thought could be argued that the particle shields can be viewed as the "navigation deflector shield" and such is a different device. in which case you'd be correct. However my standard opinion is that it is one system. (at least until something suitable changed my mind)

Q 2) Sue to the fact that ION cannons are causing electrical/power-energy disruption and not "physical" Energy or Kinetic damage I would say that the soak would not be modified, because integrity is not the target as it were.

Tinman · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Posts: 110

shootingwomprats · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:14 pm Post subject:

Well my take on this, since ion cannons are designed to circumvent energy shields and that particle shields are just another type of energy shield they should be circumvented as well. This would mean that ship hull ratings would be -2D for the purpose of soak damage vs ion cannons. This definitely gives ion cannons a much needed boost.

Lets be honest, no one is afraid of ion cannons. As RAW its entirely too hard to get enough controls ionized to make a ship go to controls dead and even if you do get that far, it only lasts for 2 rounds and does not reduce speed. Ion cannons per RAW are indeed useless.

BUT. If we take into account that the hull rating is indeed -2D this gives them a great deal more punch.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter

TyCaine · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:46 pm Post subject:

My take is that particle shields are on all ships, otherwise any and all craft would be very quickly reduced to scrap from micro-meteors or from flying through an area of space-bourne dust. This accounts for the standard Hull die code.

So even a TIE fighter has rudimentary particle shields, otherwise a very expensively trained pilot and craft would be toast too often due to just running routine patrols.

Now, archaic ships? Let's assume no shielding (or very basic) but perhaps a thicker hull (or a lower Hull die code), but for everything in general use, Hull = Hull + Particle shields, simple as that.

When anyone talks about upgrading shields, they're updating the energy shields only, Particle are separate. When anyone talks about upgrading Hull code, we can assume it's beefing up the structure, but particle shields themselves always stay at the '2D' rating, but in their defense they protect against all the little things no one thinks about...

As far as Ion weapons go, I agree that in RAW they're practically useless, we saw the problems wrought by the Ion cannon at Hoth, a whole Star Destroyer was rendered useless, at least temporarily, and yet RAW doesn't reflect that.

So I agree that Ion weapons should be rolling against the -2D Hull (1D minimum) and no shielding. We can assume that's not just the particle shields being bypassed, but any and all electronic enhancements that help hold the ship together are impacted. Which makes Ion weapons much more effective.

We read the fluff about pirates or privateers, or even Imperial customs ships and boardings, but without an effective Ion weapon to temporarily render the ship inoperable, it would be a hard fight to get to that point.

That's what I'm leaning towards... Very Happy

T.C.
_________________
"For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred with ignition trouble."

shootingwomprats · Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:35 am Post subject:

I am also in favor of adding -1 Move for every controls ionized result as well. This can be explained away as causing energy fluctuations in the reactor relays causing the reactor to automatically shunt power and eventually go offline as opposed to blowing up. Sorry its not Star Trek, there is no jettisoning the reactor.

By adding the -1 Move penalty it will have the added effect of slowing the ship down, which I do believe should be one of its functions. Well that and also making it exceedingly hard to jump to hyperspace.

Perhaps an added effect would be scrambling the astrogation computer and losing all calculated information. This would force the characters to recalculate the jump (requiring at least 12 rounds) or making a hasty jump (astrogation +30).

I like both of these ideas a great deal.

garhkal

shootingwomprats · Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:27 pm Post subject:

I tend to agree with the idea that the Hull would continue to include the the particle shields. In the example listed below Ion Cannons it does not incur a -2D penalty vs the Hull. It does raise an interesting question though. Why bother to have the rule listed (if particle shields are dropped Hull -2D) if there is not real chance of using it? Also, it appears in the section right before Ion Cannon Damage and from its placement, the rules are connected in some way.

I know I am making a lot of assumptions but I also don't think they are huge stretches either. I think that something people are forgetting in this discussion of allowing or not allowing the -2D Hull vs ion cannon soak rolls is that ion cannons do no real damage. So a ship that would be reduced to Hull 0 (say a TIE/In) when fired upon would have no resistance and the total of damage would roll against the Ion Cannon Damage Table. A score of 16+ would only be dead controls.

The additional issue is what does controls dead mean. On the accompanying page it stated if a ship takes a total amount of controls ionized equal to or greater than the Hull code the controls are locked and goes on to explain what that means. No explanation of controls dead is given.

If we infer that this is different from controls locked that it must means that all ship systems are offline for the rest of the scene as no time is given beyond the stun rules which make things last only two rounds.

I know this is long winded but the point I am making for the -2D hull penalty is that its not the same as rolling soak for damage.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter

Ral_Brelt · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 05 May 2013 Posts: 221

There is a usage. For a large ship to launch smaller craft, particle shields must be lowered. This would mean launching fighters while in close combat is a dangerous thing as the hull code would be weaker for a possibly horrible moment or three.

garhkal · Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:22 am Post subject:

Which might make for a tactics roll to try and time your attack ON the enemy vessel (say a carrier) with torps and concussion missiles for WHEN he is dropping his particle shields to launch their fighters.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

atgxtg · Rear Admiral Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Posts: 2460

garhkal · Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:42 pm Post subject:

And since ions ARE non lethal, its a lot easier to get bigger/more potent ones on your ship installed and passed imperial customs.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

Tinman · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Posts: 110

Methedor · Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:43 pm Post subject:

In the case of warheads I'd imagine that the ship would take damage from the detonation of the warhead at damage-1D depending on type (Explosive, Shape Charged, Kinetic, Proton Torpedo). In the case of fighters I'd think a ram at Combat Launch (Scramble) speed would be 8-10D with a destroyed result possibly meaning that the reactor goes thus causing roughly 12D damage (based on the occupant injury rules) I'd probably shift the Capital Hull scale for a hangar explosion.

This is from the top of my sleep deprived head. I do like the idea of Particle shield sabotage!

	The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2