I realise this is a stupid question...

...but I've been poring over Spacedock for about 2 hours tonight trying to find the answer...and I can't.

So here's the stupid question (apologies, everyone! :) )

Let's say an Intrepid-class, with 800 shields, takes a photon torpedo to the forward shields. The forward shields are at 600/800, now, right? Okay, got that.

Now, the other shield arcs; port, starboard and aft, are still at 800, right? Okay, got that.

Now let's say the forward shields take another 600 damage, collapsing them.

Has the entire shield bubble collapsed (which is what I've been playing) or do the other 3 arcs still have shielding?

Sorry for being dopey...too much flu medication and too little sleep, methinks! :(

I think the other shields stay up. Only the damaged shield should collapse. I mean each shield is powered by its own circuits so once the shield is overloaded it the circuit breakers would cut in and not dump the overload onto the other shield circuits. It only makes sense. Of course in a dramatic moment the circuit breakers can fail and the entire shield system blows and they all collapse.

It's been said on the shows that 'forward shields are down to X% and holding', and 'our aft shields have collapsed', IIRC

Spacedock has two statements on this topic. Unfortunately they seem to contradict each other:

"When a ship turns off its shields it must turn them all off. It cannot deactivate just one; that render sall the shields unstable and causes them to collapse" (page 126)

And:

"...when Protection reaches 0, the shield collapses and the ship is vulnerable to attack on that one side." (page 73)


IMHO it makes little sense that you can't turn off one shield arc without collapsing the others, but that during combat one shield can go down without this effect happening. OTOH, it makes a lot more sense if take play balance considerations into account and don't look at it as a technical problem.

Unless Steve Long clarfies this matter I would go with the rules on p. 73, i.e. you only loose the shields for the arc that has been brought down to 0 protection.

IIRC on-sreen at least once a ship has lowered a shield to allow transporter use without dropping all shields.

To use the above example, if the Intrepid loses its forward shield, does it still has to maintain power to the forward shield to prevent instability in the other three?

If so, does it have to supply power to maintain the shield as though it were at the 800 points it was originally raised to, or can it be less than that. Could you simply use 1 power?

Calguard:

I don't recall it ever being explicitly stated that one shield could be lowered for beam out. In fact a majority of times transport through shields is impossible. Thereby incresing dramatic tension by leaving an away team in danger. Of course I could be wrong.

But there have been a few times when beam out has occured through raised shield. I can think of TNG's "Relics" and "The Battle" off the top of my head.

Of course there's nothing to stop the players matching the transporter emitter frequency to the shield rotation frequency and beaming their endangered shipmates up. (If they roll high enough :D ).

If the one shield collapses from damage, the rest remain at their current state of effect. They do not collapse also.

The inability to simply turn off one shield may seem contradictory, but I don't think it is, really. It's a different sort of situation. The rule is dictated by two things:

1. In all the times a ship on the show has desperately needed to beam someone on board during a fight (or whatever), we've never heard or seen the crew turn off just one shield arc. Reasoning from a negative is not always wise, but I think it has merit in this case.

2. Game balance. If you could do that, it would have a deleterious effect on the game by providing an "easy out" for situations where the PCs really should tough it out or think creatively.

Steve Long

Thanks for the input all...
My players are going to eat me for breakfast, I guess, but it does seem more logical in light of what people have said.

Why? Make a ruling and stick by it that's what I say. If you have to use those infamous words "because I'm the GM" then do so. Alternatively you can print out this thread and show them that Steve Long the man who wrote the rules personally said so.