Explosions breaking stealth

[AdrianH]

It has already been established in Rulesmasters that an energy mine exploding near a stealthy ship will count as an attack for the purpose of reducing stealth; it doesn't matter that the stealthy ship wasn't actually targetted, what matters is that dice were rolled against it.

What about another ship exploding next to the stealthy ship? If a ship has been hit with gratuitous firepower and exploded immediately, and there's a stealthy ship within 4" of it, will that explosion reduce the stealth by 1 as if it had been an energy mine?

 

[Na-Po]

The fact is that this +1 bonus against stealth is awarded as long as the ship
rolling the dice is still alive.
Which works with e-mines but denies any bonus due to a ship exploding.

IMO it's the same case than suicide fighters.

A suicide fighter won't give a +1 against stealth since it's not on the table anymore.

 

[Burger]

Na-Po is correct, from the stealth rules:

An additional –1 penalty is applied if any other ship in the same fleet has successfully attacked the target in the same turn and is still on the table and not Stricken or Running Adrift.

It has been ruled that e-mines fall into that category, but ship explosions don't need a ruling... they clearly do not fit into that description.

 

[Na-Po]

Last thing to add with this definition, since 2nd Ed. fighters are counted as ships for this kind of rules (not for movement).

So a fighter targeting your stealthy ship will grant the bonus.

(Best way of doing IMO is to get at least one fighter in base contact which allows you to ignore stealth and thus gives you the bonus for your "ranged" fighters and ships)

 

[Greg Smith]

(Best way of doing IMO is to get at least one fighter in base contact which allows you to ignore stealth and thus gives you the bonus for your "ranged" fighters and ships)

A slightly better way is getting one more fighter than the target ship's anti-fighter rating.

 

[Burger]

(Best way of doing IMO is to get at least one fighter in base contact which allows you to ignore stealth and thus gives you the bonus for your "ranged" fighters and ships)

A slightly better way is getting one more fighter than the target ship's anti-fighter rating.

An even better way is getting one more fighter than double the target ship's AF rating plus the AF rating of all escorts with 8" :lol:

 

[Na-Po]

Have to say that I often play as shadows so my opponents just need one fighter in base contact ;-)

 

[Da Boss]

From the P+P test pack

Energy Mines
The use of Energy Mines by other races has proved very effective against stealth-using enemies, particularly the Minbari, as the blast effectively highlights the ship’s silhouette against empty space.

If a ship with the Stealth trait is caught in the blast of an Energy Mine, this will count as a successful attack, giving other vessels the normal +1 bonus to overcome Stealth.

 

[AdrianH]

From the P+P test pack

Energy Mines
The use of Energy Mines by other races has proved very effective against stealth-using enemies, particularly the Minbari, as the blast effectively highlights the ship’s silhouette against empty space.

If a ship with the Stealth trait is caught in the blast of an Energy Mine, this will count as a successful attack, giving other vessels the normal +1 bonus to overcome Stealth.

That comes from the Minbari section of "Fleet Command". Given that location, as well as the text I've highlighted in the quote, does this mean that energy mines only break Minbari stealth?

Or should the passage be moved to somewhere neutral, e.g. the "New Rules" document, with the words "particularly the Minbari" deleted?

 

[Da Boss]

would make sense to do as you describe

 

[Burger]

Carrots are orange.
My car is orange.
Therefore my car is a carrot?

Just because one rule is clarified, does not imply the inverse is not true. I'd file this under "badly placed" or "badly worded" or just plain "unnecessary". Maybe there should be an FAQ section with this clarification in it, or is that too reminiscent of Armageddon?

Anyway its from a playtest pack so its not even finalized.

 

[AdrianH]

Carrots are orange.
My car is orange.
Therefore my car is a carrot?

There are numerous orange objects. You've been told that they are not good to eat. Then you find a document which says all sorts of things about all sorts of food, but only in the section about mushrooms does it say that that orange ones are not good to eat. The sections about fruit and vegetables, as well as the section about food in general, say nothing. Maybe it's safe to eat that carrot after all?

Just because one rule is clarified, does not imply the inverse is not true. I'd file this under "badly placed" or "badly worded" or just plain "unnecessary". Maybe there should be an FAQ section with this clarification in it, or is that too reminiscent of Armageddon?

Anyway its from a playtest pack so its not even finalized.

Precisely why I suggested that perhaps the rule should go into neutral territory and have the Minbari reference removed.

 

[Burger]

Carrots are orange.
My car is orange.
Therefore my car is a carrot?

There are numerous orange objects. You've been told that they are not good to eat. Then you find a document which says all sorts of things about all sorts of food, but only in the section about mushrooms does it say that that orange ones are not good to eat. The sections about fruit and vegetables, as well as the section about food in general, say nothing. Maybe it's safe to eat that carrot after all?

But it doesn't say nothing. The +1 bonus is on page 20 and Matt has clarified previously that this does include e-mines. Just because it is now also clarified in the Minbari section, doesn't mean those previous rulings are invalidated... P+P is an expansion of the existing rules, so unless a rule is explicitly changed, it remains the same.

Precisely why I suggested that perhaps the rule should go into neutral territory and have the Minbari reference removed.

Yep, I agree, if it is going to be clarified then it should be in the general book not under Minbari. Though really (IMO) it isn't necessary at all.