Hel Track


I keep hearing that the Nemesis gets +1 to stealth detection, but I haven't found anything solid in ragards to such. So, is this bonus simply rumor, even if highly likely, or has there been a solid statement claiming as to how the HEL Track works?
pretty sure its just a +1 to defeat stealth for the ship that has it equipped. armageddon will clear it up for sure...
not quite...the apollo's missile lose the ability when crippled, and the delphi can lose scout totally when crippled.

But the non slow loading nature of the Apollo missiles and the lack of range on its Scout are not traits, though obviously the Scout trait effects the no range factor.

Like Greg says, the HEL is not a trait, more of a special feature.

So effectively, you can kill its Flight computer......just a box prolly very deep within the ship.

But the HEL track stays......now how come its more resistant to desctruction than a black box?

Shadow tech? (which would be kinda sad......Deus ex machina is kinda boring) Plus if you hit w black shadowtech box with a big beam, it should still go offline, melt, dissolve, die? whatever their biotech does.

The Delphi isnt a good comparison, you might just call the Delphis trait a super scout, and they are intricately tied to each other. Apollo is mroe like interceptors, you dont roll, they go offline every time.

I dont like the precedent this represents.
Is it a precedent?

You can't reduce the turns on a Vree SM ship. You can't destroy a Drazi Sky Hook Catapult. You can't damage a ancient's charged energy pulse.

Now I can see there is an arguement for making the HEL-track vulnerable to crippling. Perhaps there should be a 'Special' trait for ships with unique rules. At the moment, only the Nemesis and several ancients get unique non-removable gizmos, so it isn't a big problem.
Uhh you are correct.

But how many turns does it take to reduce an infinite number of turns?

And if their engine would actually be damaged in such a way, it would be more like dead in space anyway. Cant explain too well, but normally reducing number of turns represents damaged engine nozzles and stuff like that. Not on a Vree ship. Its just one big engine without anything on its outer hull.

Ancients dont get criticals, dont get crippled.........

Drazi Sky Hook, true thats iffy, but not important, because the fighter should be already launched by then. But you have got me here.....

But it is more of a precedent of you consider that it will actually be usefull when youre crippled. Sky hooks tend to be empty by then.
Voronesh said:
Ancients dont get criticals, dont get crippled.........

Yes they do. I'm not talking about Shadows and Vorlons, I mean the Dark Knife, The Traveller et al. Several of their ships have super gizmos that cannot be lost when they are crippled.

But I do agree with you, that if there were a proliferation of such traits, it could be a problem. As it stands, only a handful of the most powerful ships in the game have them, so consider it a feature rather than a problem.
I wouldn´t call it a "precedent", merely an inconsistency. It´s not like this endangers the time-spaye continuum, is it? It might be annoying, but I doubt that it will have a grave effect on gameplay... maybe thing´s like that will be sorted ou in the furture, maybe not, but I don´consider it a big deal...
Nahh it wont be a problem.

Its just that GW started down the same path with armor saves -> can be ignored -> invul saves -> can be ignored now too.....

Its just that if its rare it doesnt matter. But if its becoming more common, i think it might become a real nuisance.

Now the Ancients do get criticals, but they remove them at the end of the turn. Ok you can stop them firing for a turn.....but only if youre lucky ^^.

Other ships get a no fire crit, and theyre practically out of the game.
Having a large number of exceptions to ships (this is the third 'exception' ship in the earth alliance) is a problem for most gaming systems. Exceptions are very hard to balance, especially when there is no limit to the amount of exceptions you can have in one fleet.

The Earth alliance in the Crusade era could concienably field a Nemesis, 3 Apollos, 2 Chronus and 2 Delphi. A fleet where most ships require additional thought because you cannot just ask the traits, you have to know the ship. Strong anti-stealth fleet as well, would the Minbari still be balanced against it given all but the Chronus can 'fit out' for anti-stealth work? Hard to say.

I do not think that what we are dealing with so far is bad, but I find the idea of more and more of these 'notes' on ships to be an almost inevitable problem. We are already adding layers of rules, FAQ, errata, to a game that has as one of its big marketing points simplicity.

One of the big reasons I was against the Aux craft/fighter vs ship distinction. Would be fine if each had a seperate section in the rules describing how they move, shoot, take SAs, etc. but the way they have structured the rules is to say they are just like ships but... Its a format that screams for misinterpretation, overlooked assumption (enemy fighters or more than four fighters on a base anyone) and unintended consequence.

When you write rules keep each rule clear, concise, do not share terms between similar rules, and above all do not make more than one exception per rule. Otherwise the exception becomes the rule and folks are always reaching for a book and going 'how does that work?'

Ripple said:
One of the big reasons I was against the Aux craft/fighter vs ship distinction. Would be fine if each had a seperate section in the rules describing how they move, shoot, take SAs, etc. but the way they have structured the rules is to say they are just like ships but...

Well aux craft do have their own SA sections in SFOS

Auxilliary craft are ships with the Fighter trait. But auxilliary craft are not ships.

Ships with the Breaching Pod trait also have the Fighter trait and so are auxilliary craft but don't follow the rules for dogfights.

Actually the rules are pretty easy to follow. However a clear differentiation in the introduction might not be a bad thing.
My only response here is that they are obviously not as easy to read as you seem to think. Rulesmasters and the ominous FAQ in Arm. are fairly good indications that the rules are fairly diffcult to understand without help.

I was taught aspects of this game wrong by two different tournament organizers. Are we assuming they are sub-par in the smarts department?

I think the rules are easier for folks who see them going through various revisions in the playtest process as the intent of the rule is usually communicated during this process. We have helped write several games here and you can see it when we try to have a fresh set of eyes read the rules. They come up with interpretations that seem ludicrous to us but only because we know what the intended effect is.

the gift of "clarity of writing" is a rare one. Just read any of the engineering texts I had in college... :lol: