[ACTA:SF] Unusual to-hit situations questions

[billclo]

I've got a question.

How do we handle unusual to hit situations, wherein the number to hit is over 6? For example:

Say you have a weapons damage critical hit (-1 to hit), and are firing drones at a target over 18" (normally a 5-6 to hit, but is now a "6" due to weapons damage) away at an evading target (-1 to hit)?

Or firing drones at a target over 9" in a nebula (max range is halved in a nebula, and this is the equivalent of over 18" in normal space) - normally you'd need a 5-6 to hit at over half range, but the nebula gives you a -2 to hit = 7+ on a d6 to hit.

I don't see anything in the rules about an 1 on a attack die always missing, nor a 6 always hitting (and penetrating shields), so I can really only see 2 ways to resolve such situations:

1) say you need a "7"+ on a d6, therefore you can't make the shot.

2) Assume that a "6" always hit, so you need to roll a "6" on a d6 per attack die.

Or might I have missed something?

 

[dix]

Hmmm. Interesting. I've never had this come up.

I would say that, logically, all die roll modifiers are cumulative and that it should be treated as an automatic miss.

However, under SHIELDS on page 7, it explicitly states "Every Attack Die that rolls a 6 will ignore the Shields completely and instead strike the hull directly, rolling on the Attack Table that follows."

This would indicate that a natural 6 hits in any case.

P.S., Personally, I would split the difference and say that: In the case where die roll modifiers adjust the die roll such that a hit would be impossible, a natural 6 will indicate a hit, regardless. However, such a hit DOES NOT ignore the shields and DOES NOT strike the hull directly.
(But this is just my opinion.)

 

[Janus]

Hello,

I'm new to this forum and just started playing ACTA:SF. This topic is specifically one of the questions I came here seeking a clarification on. I've been playing Star Fleet Battles for over a decade so that is where I am coming from on the strictness of rules interpretation.


Here is my take on the rules as written:

From what I understand (page 7 of the rulebook) it simply says "A roll of 4 or more on the Attack Die is a hit." Thus a roll of 1-3 is a miss and not a hit.

The penalties or bonuses are applied to the Attack Dice roll (such as Accurate, Firing at Long Range, or System Damage) and modify the the value rolled on the Attack Die, NOT the number required to score a hit.

Since you only ever need a 4 or better to score a hit. If you Roll a 6 on the Attack Dice, but have a -3 penalty to the Attack Dice roll, you still need a 4 or better to hit. But while the actual Attack Die rolled may be a 6, it's modified value is a 3 and thus a miss. (Because the value of the Attack Dice is what is modified not the threshold required to qualify as a "hit").

In the case of an Attack Die roll of 6 bypassing shields, you still need to roll a 4+ to score a hit. Just because the rules for Shields say that Attack Die rolls of 6 bypass shields doesn't negate the part where it says only Attack Dice Rolls of 4+ are required to score a hit. So if you were at -3 penalty to the Attack Die and roll a 6 on the Attack die, you missed.

Lets say that you were at a -2 penalty to the Attack Die Roll and roll a 6, which after the penalty becomes a 4, while you scored a hit, it will not bypass the shields because the roll is not a 6, it is a 4.


One of the problems with the rules, that I think are implied but not explicitly defined and thus not to be included in any "read as written" interpretation, is the distinction between the Attack Dice net value and actual "natural" value rolled.

Currently, I see no distinction between the two, as such, any penalty or modifier to the Attack Dice roll such that the net value is not a "6" will not satisfy the rules for bypassing shields. As the rule specifically states an Attack Dice roll of 6 is required, not a roll of 6+ or more, thus a net value of 7, 8 or 9, would not satisfy the rules-as-written requirement to bypass a target's shields.

 

[billclo]

Interesting interpretations.

I ask this question because I will be designing a scenario that takes place in a nebula, where all fire is at -2. I can easily see where someone will have an additional -1 somehow, whether due to weapons damage, or firing at "long range". Which is why I was hoping to get an official ruling so that it may be noted in the scenario notes or something.

Janus's intepretation is interesting. For some reason I have gotten into mentally applying the modifiers to the to-hit number, not the die. Ie, a +2 bonus for Accurate +2 = 2-6 to hit, NOT a +2 to my die roll such that a "2" result is a hit. Subtle difference.

So that -3 for nebula effects and long range fire should mean that I cannot ever hit since my modified result cannot be a "4" or more. But a strict reading of the rules read tell me that any roll of a natural 6 is a hit that penetrates the shields regardless of whether or not it's even possible to hit in the first place. :?

Matt, we could really use a ruling.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'd agree with Janus that Attack Dice modifiers are applied to the dice themselves, not the score to hit. But the "bypass on 6" has already been ruled on as being a natural 6 (i.e. a roll of 6 before applying modifiers). Here for once: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=50544

 

[billclo]

I'd agree with Janus that Attack Dice modifiers are applied to the dice themselves, not the score to hit but the "bypass on 6" has already been ruled on as being a natural 6 (i.e. a roll of 6 before applying modifiers).

So effectively even if you have a -3 to hit (ie, can't normally hit), a natural 6 is a hit that bypasses shields anyways? :lol:

Too bad there isn't a rule saying that if you have a -3 to hit or worse, ie can't normally hit, instead of rolling normal attack dice, roll 2d6 for each 1d6 you would have rolled. A "12" or "2" on 2d6 indicates a hit, no chance of shield penetration. This would give you what, a 6% chance of a hit, which is less than the 16.6% of a hit if you use the a natural 6 is a hit and it penetrates no matter what rule.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'd say yes, in absence of any ruling to the contrary. It's not like you actually have operating shields in a nebula, so the bypass effect isn't going to matter.

With the Accurate trait on almost all direct fire weapons, you're only going to have "impossible" shots regularly on Photon Torpedoes (Accurate +1 weapons firing at long range at evading targets and/or with weapons criticals less often) and I'd suggest that if a ship can fire at all, it should have at least a small chance to get a hit since it's down to "atmospheric effects" rather than range/damage etc.

 

[billclo]

Right.

Well in a nebula, I am more concerned about the roll a 6 and get an otherwise impossible hit, not penetrating non-existent shields. But the situation could come up in normal space combat as well, though rarely I would think (weapons damage, firing at long range, vs a evading target).

How shall we handle long range drone fire then, that normally hits on a 5-6 on a d6? If the nebula effect and long range modifier is -3 total, and the "roll a 6 and penetrate shields" rule does not apply to seeking weapons, can they even hit at all with a -3? I'd think you simply cannot get them to hit under those circumstances, unlike direct fire weapons where we could argue that there is at least a small (1/6ths) chance of a freak hit.

 

[Iain McGhee]

Aye, I was just thinking about Seekers myself in that situation. I'm unconvinced they should be able to fire at all at any range in a nebula (at best you're only getting intermittent glimpses of the target, if an unmentionable battle from an unmentionable film between two unmentionable ships is any guide). Going to be a bit too powerful at short range if you've got a -2 penalty on defensive fire, although I suppose you've still got Evasive and Tractors.

I'd suggest it's still a natural 6 to hit (it does say make attack rolls as normal, but no penetration effect). If it was my scenario, I'd house rule it to natural 6 to lock, then make an attack roll as normal to see if the Drones retain their lock long enough to go terminal and hit. But I'm evil that way

 

[billclo]

From the latest rules errata:

"Seeking: Seeking weapons must travel across space to their target but will doggedly pursue it until they impact and explode with deadly effect. A weapon with this trait will automatically hit a target within 18”, without rolling any Attack Dice. At greater ranges, it will require Attack Dicerolls as normal. Apply modifiers (such as long range) to the Attack Dice as normal."

I interpret this to mean that at half range or less (shorter than usual due to nebula effects to be sure), you don't even roll dice, and the drones automatically hit, so the -2 modifier doesn't even apply.

I agree there ought to be some modifier for trying to launch plasma/drones in a nebula, but currently there isn't one. Myself, I'd make it a die roll to maintain lock after firing (say, instead of auto-hit, say 3-6 on a d6 hits), PLUS a negative modifier to each die that is rolled for damage (say -1 to the damage dice) to represent confused torpedo sensors detonating prematurely.

Nebula's ought to be bad places to try and fight in.

 

[kyrolon]

I think I'd just leave seeking weapons alone. If I am understanding this, you'd need to get to 9" to hit (which would then be an auto hit). At the risk of being told that this isn't SFB my recollection was that seeking weapons moving in a nebula took damage as they moved. This was the limiting factor on their use.

The limit to 9" models this nicely, I think. The only thing that would make it better would be if that worked out to 8" so it was phaser KZ range.

Plasma torpedoes though? I'm not sure what to do with them. They should loose strength. Of course (and I haven't looked) if the range is doubled, then they'd need to get to 4" to have full effect.

 

[billclo]

Plasma torpedoes though? I'm not sure what to do with them. They should loose strength. Of course (and I haven't looked) if the range is doubled, then they'd need to get to 4" to have full effect.

Plasmas lose a die of damage per torpedo. I would think their range would be halved as well, so they'd have to get to 4" to get their full warhead minus one die.

Barring a ruling from Matt, I think that I am going to go with drones have a max range of 9, but auto-hit. Similarly I guess I will go with rolling a natural 6 is sufficient to score a hit even if normally there would be no way to score a hit (ie, you have a -3 due to terrain/long range/weapons damage effects).

If this scenario ever sees publication, I expect that more people will have a similar question and maybe then we can get an official ruling.

 

[billclo]

I did think of another question about nebula effects vs weapons while doing some play testing.

Nebulas give a -2 to fire. Does this affect ADDs/Combined Drone racks? Technically they are a weapon that rolls to hit (hits on a 1-6). So would the nebula effects give a -2 on the dice, to reflect the ADD "missiles" being less accurate and you needing to fire more to get a "hit", thereby running you out of ammunition sooner?

I am finding that drones fired at 9" or less in a nebula are downright deadly, with defensive fire being less than accurate (phaser-1 becomes a 4-6, phaser-2 or 3 becomes a 5-6 to hit), and there being no shields. :shock:

 

[scoutdad]

Matthew earlier ruled that defensive fire in a dust cloud is not affected by the Dust Clouds natural stealth effects as the fire was made at point blank range.

While I'm by no means the official answer guy, I'd usethe same logic here.
Since defensive fire is point-blank, you could probably look out the window and see the incoming drone. I'd ignore that modifier for defensive fire - but that's just me.

 

[billclo]

Matthew earlier ruled that defensive fire in a dust cloud is not affected by the Dust Clouds natural stealth effects as the fire was made at point blank range.

While I'm by no means the official answer guy, I'd usethe same logic here.
Since defensive fire is point-blank, you could probably look out the window and see the incoming drone. I'd ignore that modifier for defensive fire - but that's just me.

That makes sense, and barring a ruling from Matt, that's what I'll go with.