Damage Control on Destroyed Systems?

[elbmc1969]

Can you repair a destroyed ship system during space combat? The rules are annoyingly vague.

 

[DickNervous]

Internal systems, yes. So things like drives, sensors, turrets, etc. you can repair.

Hull, Structure, and fuel no.

 

[elbmc1969]

So, it's impossible to permanently destroy anything in combat? You can shoot it up completely, they can repair it back to full capability, repeat indefinitely?

That seems weird ...

Somebody on the Mongoose forum posted a ship combat cheat sheet/damage tracking sheet that implied that a third hit made it impossible to repair a system, but that may be wrong.

Hmm. Looking at the rules (again), the table does allow you to repair three hits from a single system in one repair attempt. That only makes sense if you can repair a "destroyed" system.

Just not a fan of these rules so far ...

 

[Lord Blaine]

They can repair internal systems assuming there are enough free crew to do the repairs, and there are no external components for you to destroy. If you throw enough firepower at them, neither of those things will be a guarantee.

 

[DickNervous]

A few key things to remember:

1. GM sets the difficulty of the check. The more damaged something is the higher the difficulty.
2. Hits repaired are based on the effect. So they have to roll 6+ more than what they needed to repair 3 hits.
3. Repairs like this are TEMPORARY BATTLEFIELD REPAIRS (duct tape and rubber bands) and only last until the battle is over.

For the difficulty I set it to either 8, 10, or 12. If something has one hit, it is an 8+ check to repair. 2 hits on it is a 10+, and 3 hits (destroyed) is a 12+. Also, if damage passed through the item, you can't fix it. And you can't repair something again unless it gets hit again.

For example, the M-Drive gets a double hit. The mechanic has M-Drive Engineer - 3 and no Education bonus. So it is a 10+ to start with, his 3 skill makes it a 7+. He rolls an 8, repairing 1 point. He can't attempt to fix it again until it takes more damage so they have to work with 1 less thrust.

Next round the M-Drive gets hit again, but this time with 2 single hits, so it now has 3 hits and is "destroyed". With the skill modifier this is a 9+ check and he rolls an 11. So now it is at 2 hits.

Round 3 it gets hit with a double and damage has gone through it to the hull. This means it can't be fixed, at least not during battle. If they survive I would let them do a check to fix it enough to limp to the nearest port for repairs, but that's about it.

And you can't fix hull, structure, armor, or fuel hits since they require you to go outside the ship.

 

[elbmc1969]

Round 3 it gets hit with a double and damage has gone through it to the hull. This means it can't be fixed, at least not during battle.

Where do you see that rule? Or is it a house rule?

 

[elbmc1969]

A few key things to remember:

GM sets the difficulty of the check. The more damaged something is the higher the difficulty.

That's just sloppy design by Mongoose. There's no justification for not specifying difficulty levels for something as cut-and-dried as the space combat rules. Instead, no one is going to actually play space combat the same.

Repairs like this are TEMPORARY BATTLEFIELD REPAIRS (duct tape and rubber bands) and only last until the battle is over.

I understand that completely, but it's not relevant to the question of being able to take damage, then fix it all up, then take damage, then fix it all up, ad infinitum. It draws out combat and it makes triple hits relatively meaningless. If a triple hit slags a system and makes it unrepairable, then a triple hit is much, much better than a double hit plus a single hit.

For example, the M-Drive gets a double hit. The mechanic has M-Drive Engineer - 3 and no Education bonus. So it is a 10+ to start with, his 3 skill makes it a 7+. He rolls an 8, repairing 1 point. He can't attempt to fix it again until it takes more damage so they have to work with 1 less thrust.

Where are you seeing that? I don't see any prohibition on gradually repairing a system.

Next round the M-Drive gets hit again, but this time with 2 single hits, so it now has 3 hits and is "destroyed". With the skill modifier this is a 9+ check and he rolls an 11. So now it is at 2 hits.

This makes no sense. Suppose the drive takes 1 hit and I fail my repair check. Sorry, can't take another try. Now the drive takes another hit, so it's in worse shape than before, when I permanently couldn't fix it. However, because it took more damage, I get another crack at it. This time, I get a really good success (just imagine that I have higher Education and skill) and I get two points of repair. The drive is completely repaired because it took additional damage!

The logic breaks down.

Round 3 it gets hit with a double and damage has gone through it to the hull. This means it can't be fixed, at least not during battle.

I don't see this in the rules. Could you point me to the page?

 

[CosmicGamer]

So, it's impossible to permanently destroy anything in combat? You can shoot it up completely, they can repair it back to full capability, repeat indefinitely?

What rules are you using?

There is a limit to how much repair can be done based on spare parts you have.

Jury rigged repairs during a battle don't last

A damaged system can be jury-rigged back to functioning, but it will stop functioning again after 1d6 hours.

Also

These are battlefield repairs only and will break down as soon as the battle is over unless repaired properly using the rules on page 143.

With Mongoose core rules 3 hits to the same system will destroy it.

A destroyed system costs 2d6 10% of its original cost to repair, and cannot be repaired using spare parts – it can only be repaired at a world with the appropriate Technology Level or a well-equipped starport.

Hull repairs are unlikely during combat unless it's a real long fight

Hull Damage: Hull damage can be repaired with a Mechanic check taking 1–6 hours, and consumes one ton of spare parts.

Fuel leeks can be repaired but you don't get the fuel back.

Crew can be killed.

Structure damage can only be repaired at a shipyard.

If you "shoot it up completely" the entire ship can be destroyed in combat.

 

[DickNervous]

That's just sloppy design by Mongoose. There's no justification for not specifying difficulty levels for something as cut-and-dried as the space combat rules. Instead, no one is going to actually play space combat the same.

[*]Repairs like this are TEMPORARY BATTLEFIELD REPAIRS (duct tape and rubber bands) and only last until the battle is over.[/LIST]

I understand that completely, but it's not relevant to the question of being able to take damage, then fix it all up, then take damage, then fix it all up, ad infinitum. It draws out combat and it makes triple hits relatively meaningless. If a triple hit slags a system and makes it unrepairable, then a triple hit is much, much better than a double hit plus a single hit.


Where are you seeing that? I don't see any prohibition on gradually repairing a system.


This makes no sense. Suppose the drive takes 1 hit and I fail my repair check. Sorry, can't take another try. Now the drive takes another hit, so it's in worse shape than before, when I permanently couldn't fix it. However, because it took more damage, I get another crack at it. This time, I get a really good success (just imagine that I have higher Education and skill) and I get two points of repair. The drive is completely repaired because it took additional damage!

The logic breaks down.


I don't see this in the rules. Could you point me to the page?

As I said, this is how I handle it so yeah, it's house rules and common sense. But to address some of what you brought up.

The part where you can't try again is if you SUCCEED. So let's say the drive has 2 hits, you succeed but only fix 1 hit. You can't try again at that point as you have already fixed it as best you could. If you fail, you can try again but there is an additional -DM on the attempt as per the rules for task chains.

Now the drive takes another hit, the damage is different, so this time when you are working on it you roll really good and realize that since you are looking at the problem from a different perspective you suddenly figure out how to fix it completely.

As for the damage, all damage is assessed BEFORE you can do repairs. So a triple hit on a system is the same as a double + single or 3 singles, as long as they happen during the same round of combat. Of course if you get 3 single hits you need to roll the location 3 times, so it is less likely they will all hit the same spot.

 

[elbmc1969]

As I said, this is how I handle it so yeah, it's house rules and common sense. But to address some of what you brought up.

Sorry, I didn't understand that when I read it. I thought that you were saying that the rules specify that the ref needs to set the difficulty. In fact, though, it's not clearly specified anywhere what the difficulty is. System Damage on Core p. 143 at first seems to apply, but it's clearly a rule for a very different activity: it allows Engineer and Science skill in addition to Mechanic, the attempt takes 1-6 hours, and you need spare parts, which are not specified in the Repair Damaged System rules on Core p. 150. Of course, p. 143 specifies Average difficulty, which is very different from how you're playing it--as I said, I have a real problem with Mongoose leaving this so vague that there's not chance of different groups playing space combat the same way.

The part where you can't try again is if you SUCCEED. So let's say the drive has 2 hits, you succeed but only fix 1 hit. You can't try again at that point as you have already fixed it as best you could. If you fail, you can try again but there is an additional -DM on the attempt as per the rules for task chains.

Now the drive takes another hit, the damage is different, so this time when you are working on it you roll really good and realize that since you are looking at the problem from a different perspective you suddenly figure out how to fix it completely.

I just don't buy the logic. The additional damage giving you a new perspective that allows you to fix the original damage as well seems magical.

In any case, it would be nice if Mongoose had specified whether you could make multiple repair attempts on the same system, whether you succeed or fail. I can certainly see "Keep working on it!!!" as a reasonable approach in the heat of battle. Scotty might just need some more time to get the warp drives back on line ...

As for the damage, all damage is assessed BEFORE you can do repairs. So a triple hit on a system is the same as a double + single or 3 singles, as long as they happen during the same round of combat. Of course if you get 3 single hits you need to roll the location 3 times, so it is less likely they will all hit the same spot.

I didn't express myself clearly. I meant to compare particular damage results from the Damage table (p. 150). Multiple hits on multiple systems may be a lot better than a big hit on a single system if you can repair that "destroyed" system back to full function.

 

[elbmc1969]

What rules are you using?

Mongoose Core Rules. MgT HG adds nothing, so far as I can see.

There is a limit to how much repair can be done based on spare parts you have.

As I mentioned above, that's true for the rules on Core p. 143, but the damage control rules are quite different. I don't think that the spare parts The rules on Core p. 68 seem to be for slightly different circumstances and (unfortunately) aren't cross-referenced.

These are battlefield repairs only and will break down as soon as the battle is over unless repaired properly using the rules on page 143.

Which is another reason that I think that damage control repairs don't require spare parts. This rule explicitly draws a distinction between the p. 150 damage control rules and the p. 143 repair rules.

Jury rigged repairs during a battle don't last.

I understand, but I'm only concerned with repairs during combat.

With Mongoose core rules 3 hits to the same system will destroy it.

But what does "destroy" mean? Can you repair a destroyed system? DickNervous says that you can, and the Repair Damaged System table on p. 150 implies that you can, because otherwise there's no point to being able to repair three hits on a single system.

There are a few mission kill hits in the system, like Maneuver Drive and Sensors. If they're shot out, the ship is essentially helpless, and they can be destroyed by a single hit from a powerful weapon, like a 50 ton particle beam bay.

If we want to be literal, the p. 150 rule says that "damaged" systems can be repaired. Turning to the damage effects on p. 151, we see that First Hit on a turret makes it "damaged." Good. Second Hit, though, makes the turret "disabled." That means that it can't be repaired, because a turret in the "disabled" state is not "in the "damaged" state, and only "damaged" systems can be repaired with damage control. If we look at J-Drive, First Hit only lists effects, but doesn't state that the J-Drive is actually damaged. Can it be repaired? Second Hit says "disabled." M-Drive is the same. Sensor, Bridge, and Fuel are much the same, although Bridge is a really odd case. First Hit doesn't do anything to the Bridge, it inflicts a Crew hit. Can you repair the First Hit so that an additional point of damage to the Bridge doesn't disable the Bridge? (There is an oddity that the Second and Third Hits to the bridge apparently don't cause any additional crew hits--you might want to leave that First Hit on the Bridge unrepaired so that you are guaranteed to be unharmed if the Bridge is destroyed.) Hold specifies that contents are destroyed, but could you damage control the Hold to make subsequent hits less destructive? I'm not talking about resurrecting the damaged cargo, obviously.

If Mongoose meant that "destroyed" isn't "damaged" and can't be repaired, they really should have written this more clearly. They really, really should have defined whether "disabled" was a type of "damaged" for purposes of damage control, or if it couldn't be reapaired.

 

[Lord Blaine]

I was going to gripe about Mongoose and editing, but I honestly can't think of a company that regularly puts out well edited books. Fantasy Flight are infamous, White Wolf are little better and even Wizards of the Coast put out the pain in the neck that was the 5e spell list.

 

[DickNervous]

If we want to be literal, the p. 150 rule says that "damaged" systems can be repaired. Turning to the damage effects on p. 151, we see that First Hit on a turret makes it "damaged." Good. Second Hit, though, makes the turret "disabled." That means that it can't be repaired, because a turret in the "disabled" state is not "in the "damaged" state, and only "damaged" systems can be repaired with damage control. If we look at J-Drive, First Hit only lists effects, but doesn't state that the J-Drive is actually damaged. Can it be repaired? Second Hit says "disabled." M-Drive is the same. Sensor, Bridge, and Fuel are much the same, although Bridge is a really odd case. First Hit doesn't do anything to the Bridge, it inflicts a Crew hit. Can you repair the First Hit so that an additional point of damage to the Bridge doesn't disable the Bridge? (There is an oddity that the Second and Third Hits to the bridge apparently don't cause any additional crew hits--you might want to leave that First Hit on the Bridge unrepaired so that you are guaranteed to be unharmed if the Bridge is destroyed.) Hold specifies that contents are destroyed, but could you damage control the Hold to make subsequent hits less destructive? I'm not talking about resurrecting the damaged cargo, obviously.

If Mongoose meant that "destroyed" isn't "damaged" and can't be repaired, they really should have written this more clearly. They really, really should have defined whether "disabled" was a type of "damaged" for purposes of damage control, or if it couldn't be reapaired.

You're right that Mongoose should have been more specific, which is why I came up with the "rules" I did. Simple solution is this: If the description of the damage says "destroyed", you can't fix it in the field. So basically anything that has taken 3 hits in one round is automatically toast.

 

[CosmicGamer]

But what does "destroy" mean?

As you have noted, the rules specify when a system is destroyed - usually when it gets three hits. What that means to me is that it is unusable until repaired, very similar to disabled but the distinction is how it can be repaired

Can you repair a destroyed system?

Unlike the disabled system, no for battlefield repairs and no for normal repairs but

If Mongoose meant that "destroyed" isn't "damaged" and can't be repaired, they really should have written this more clearly.

I thought they were clear in this quote from the rules

A destroyed system costs 2d6 10% of its original cost to repair, and cannot be repaired using spare parts – it can only be repaired at a world with the appropriate Technology Level or a well-equipped starport.

They really, really should have defined whether "disabled" was a type of "damaged" for purposes of damage control, or if it couldn't be reapaired.

The third hit Destroys a system and a Destroyed system can only be repaired by pulling into an appropriate star port.

The second hit Disables a system and it can be repaired normally or with jury-rigged or battlefield repairs.

Sometimes the rules can be quite confusing because there are bits and pieces spread about in different places.

 

[Nerhesi]

That is the way my group plays as well. Destroyed = no jury rigging during battle and no repairing either. It is actually clearly stated that destroyed systems need to be replaced, as they indicated a 2d6x10% cost to replace destroyed systems.

Bottom line:

You can repair systems that are NOT destroyed, but not hull, structure or armor. After some "time" (aka the current battle or so, 30+ mins, 1 hour, whatever), they will need some permanent repairs - this is done using spare-parts and takes time.

Destroyed systems (3rd hit taken) - are immediately destroyed, cannot be repaired, and must be replaced after the engagement/battle/scene.

 

[elbmc1969]

That is the way my group plays as well. Destroyed = no jury rigging during battle and no repairing either. It is actually clearly stated that destroyed systems need to be replaced, as they indicated a 2d6x10% cost to replace destroyed systems.

Weeeeeeelllll ... p. 143 says, "A destroyed system ... cannot be repaired using spare parts". It can be repaired--that's literally what the paragraph says. If it had to be replaced, the minimum cost would always be at least 100% of the original cost.

Bottom line:

You can repair systems that are NOT destroyed, but not hull, structure or armor. After some "time" (aka the current battle or so, 30+ mins, 1 hour, whatever), they will need some permanent repairs - this is done using spare-parts and takes time.

Destroyed systems (3rd hit taken) - are immediately destroyed, cannot be repaired, and must be replaced after the engagement/battle/scene.

Interestingly, it's apparently impossible to destroy a Maneuver drive. The table has the third hit as "The drive is disabled" and subsequent hits count as Hull hits. It's hard to tell if this is intentional or an editing error, since larger ships, in particular, are highly likely to be mission-killed by M-drive hits before they get any reasonable amount of other damage--every sixth hit is an M-drive hit (you may be mission-killed by Sensor hits faster; even though you're less likely to suffer a Sensor hit, you only need two of them to effectively be out of the fight).

In any case, if you read through the rules with my detailed commentary previously, I think that you'll see that the p. 143 rules and the p. 150 rules are for quite different situations--at a minimum, they fail to match up in very important ways.

I happen to think that "three hits and you're dead" is probably a good rule because it's very important for the weapon damage system to work properly. If you can't repair a system with 3 hits, them the higher results on the Damage Effect table become much more valuable--a triple hit on one system, so that it can never be repaired, is generally much more valuable that single hits on three systems, which leave all of them functional at slightly reduced capacity and repairable. This allows the less-than-linear increases in damage dice to have more-than-linear effects on weapon lethality. That particle accelerator barbette starts looking like a good deal compared to a triple laser turret ...

 

[elbmc1969]

If Mongoose meant that "destroyed" isn't "damaged" and can't be repaired, they really should have written this more clearly.

I thought they were clear in this quote from the rules

The third hit Destroys a system and a Destroyed system can only be repaired by pulling into an appropriate star port.

Again, the problem is with the text on p. 150. It states the "a damaged system" may be repaired. On p. 151, various First Hit results are specifically referred to as "damaged," but not all. Many Second Hit results are referred to as "disabled," but not all. Nowhere does it say that a disabled system is treated as damaged for p. 150 repairs. Nor does it state the destroyed systems aren't considered as state of damage for p. 150 repairs. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that p. 150 is general, and refers to any system that has suffered hits. It's also perfectly reasonable to argue that p. 150 is exclusive and only applies to systems with a hit result that specifies "damaged." Taking the pure text, it's actually inconsistent to say, "Well, the text doesn't say that disabled systems are 'damaged' for purposes of repairs, but we say that they are, and the text doesn't say that destroyed systems aren't 'damaged' for purposes of repairs, but we say that they aren't." Purely from a textual perspective.

If you don't allow disabled systems to be repaired during fighting, there's still a meaningful distinction between disabled systems and destroyed systems. You can argue that disabled systems can be fully repaired with spare parts, but destroyed systems cannot be repaired at all with spare part. Again, taking just the text, there's not distinction made on p. 143 ... but you can just go for it.

 

[simonh]

If you don't allow disabled systems to be repaired during fighting, there's still a meaningful distinction between disabled systems and destroyed systems. You can argue that disabled systems can be fully repaired with spare parts, but destroyed systems cannot be repaired at all with spare part. Again, taking just the text, there's not distinction made on p. 143 ... but you can just go for it.

I'm not sure what you mean. P.146 says destroyed systems cannot be repaired with spare parts, and also says they can only be repaired at an apropriate world or starport. It's pretty clear.

Simon Hibbs