Explain it to me. I've heard it (it's #9 on the list of the top 10 problems, with Superstack being #1 through #8) but I am not getting a clear view of the issue.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 02:24 pm: Edit

From what I understand, the issue is twofold:
1) Ships get to make tactical maneuvers AFTER everyone else moves. This lets them see what is going on before committing themselves.
2) Ships can make tactical maneuvers at just about any time. If they are using impulse and warp, they are able to make two tactical maneuvers on successive impulses. This gives them tremendous flexibility.

Put together, tactical maneuvers actually give tactical advantages and effectively encourage star castling. Since "sit-n-spin" is considered undesirable, tactical maneuvers are considered too good, as they encourage, rather than discourage, the tactics.

The simplest proposed solutions I have seen are:
1) Make ships perform tactical maneuvers at the speed 0 slot, rather than giving them an undeserved advantage.
2) Actually, I didn't fully understand the proposed "solution" for this one. The base idea is that a ship cannot perform a tac until it is "earned", rather than have the whole range in which to perform it. This would make impulse tacs really suck, as they would only be possible at impulse 32.
3) You have even proposed simply eliminating warp tactical maneuvers, but I imagine that would be considered too extreme. There would be additional heavy resistance to that, too, as it would be viewed as an "FC rule" being ported into SFB.

Personally, I think that, at the least, the first "fix" is highly warranted on general principle. (They are not moving. They should not have an advantage over moving ships.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 02:33 pm: Edit

The problem is that the enterprise with sabotaged warp engines, a princess on board, and a Klingon D7 attacking, has to have the advantage with its one sublight tac. What is done with warp tacs, I don't care much.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Okay, so . . .

1. Monsters move.
1A. Change in Temporal Elevation, except seeking weapons.
2. Ships make warp tacs.
3. Nimble ships make warp tacs.
4. Ships move.
5. Nimble ships move.
6. Fighters and shuttles move.
7. Seeking weapons move or change Temporal Elevation.
8. Bases rotate.
9. Ships make impulse tacs.
10. Nimble ships make impulse tacs.
11. Fighters make tacs.

So, now, what, if any, are the rules/balance problems with this?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:22 pm: Edit

• This is really a problem in the very competitive tourney environment only, IMHO.

• That said the problem is that a ship at speed 0 is MORE maneuverable than a moving ship. You can warp tac on imp 02, Impulse tac on imp 03, and then, on imp 08, warp tac again.
Add an allocted HET and you see why I in my Orion TBR(!) cannot outmaneuver a Tacing ship! That should say something.

• Another part of the problem is that the non-moving ship can make sure 1. the enemy always hit the shield were it put the surplus energy as reinforcements, and 2. that the enemy will always be in arc of its weapons.

• SOLUTION: Keeping the K.I.S.S. test in mind a torney specifik rule fix should be enough. Perhaps to declare impulse tacs take effect at end of turn only (which would be consistent with Imp movement).
And maybe reduce the number of warp tacs.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Steven, if the this is a problem in tourneys a change to that chart would not pass the K.I.S.S. test as it would affect the entire game. Of course, on may make a tourney specifik chart...

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:44 pm: Edit

The problem with tactical maneuvers is that they encourage star castling. Sitting at speed 0 with a lot of reinforcement on one shield you keep towards the enemy.

Because TACs happen after ships move (not before), you are nearly guaranteed to get that shield with 12+ reinforcement facing the enemy, no matter which way he moves.

The very simple solution to this issue?

Make TACs come before normal ship movement, not after. Units TAC, other units move, nimble units TAC, other nimble units move.

There is still a benefit to TACing, but now the dynamic changes. The person TACing also has to be a poker player, and the strategy of sit and spin becomes much riskier. It becomes a situational benefit, rather than a guarantee of movement precedence.

If, after testing, this proved to be too much of a benefit, the other way to tone it down would be to limit TACs to speed 3, rather than 4 (and speed 5 for X-ships rather than 6).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Carl,

You're wrong. I think, when you argue that this is only a problem for tournament play. There are some of us who rarely or never play tournament SFB^* who still think the current TAC rules could stand to be changed. The problem with tactical turns currently is that they strongly encourage "sit-and-spin", as has already been stated. And that is most definitely not restricted to tournament games.


^*(Personally, I don't like fixed maps. The idea of "walls in space" just plain annoys me.)

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Ken pretty much summed it up.

If a ship TAC'd before other ships moved, it would not be near as useful.
That by itself would be a HUGE change, and would greatly reduce the value of doing them.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 04:17 pm: Edit

What if TACs lost their special place in the order of precedence sequence but a Legendary Navigator could get TACs in the current position? (This would also help explain why Klingons didn't allow for the Enterprise using a TAC).

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Ken Burnside Johnson is right!

Seriously, with the ability to change facing 5 times in one turn (and twice in 2 impulses, if using a imp/warp tac combo), it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get on a stationary ship's vulnerable shield. The tac rules CREATED the starcastling 'tactic', after all.

Ken has proposed a fix; many people feel that simply changing the order of movement would, indeed, fix the problem.

Here is MY solution. YMMV.

Remove all distinctions from tactical manuevers. IE, the only difference between is 'warp' tac and an 'impulse' tac is the energy cost.

Limit the number of tactical manuervers for all ships to THREE. X-ships get FOUR. EY ships get TWO.Sublight ships, of course, get ONE.

Tacs cost the same as the current rules (ie, imp tac costs 1,warp tac varies).

You 'earn' your first tac on impulse #2. You can use your tac at any time, and then you have to wait 8-12 impulses (playtest!) before you can use your NEXT tac.

This means no more changing headings by 120 degrees in only 2 impulses. It means a fast ship MIGHT just be able to circle a tac'ing ship and get that weak shield.

Whaddya think, sirs?

*waits for somebody to Push The Button*

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Andrew: No.

Gregg: I could see that for warp, but not for sublight. I don't know if Petrick will agree to having two separate SoP items.

Alan: Indeed, I don't want to mess up the game to fix the tournament, but this is definitely not a tournament-only item.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I will ask Petrick if he wants to make this change for THIS YEAR'S tournament.

My theory is that if anybody objects, it's somebody who cannot win without this cheese and he has no grounds to kvetch.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 05:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Gregg: I could see that for warp, but not for sublight. I don't know if Petrick will agree to having two separate SoP items.

---

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Steve,
There is one other interaction, besides direct fire:

(C1.313-5)
Seeking weapons move and impact is announced.
Then TACs are performed "This allows tactical maneuvers to be used to turn a stronger shield toward an incoming seeking weapon."

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Isn't this already dealt with in tournaments? Ship A sets a trap, by starcastling and putting up a brick. Ship B obliges and over runs at a disadvantage and loses or ship B avoids ship A by not coming into the trap and continues to circle. Doesn't the non-maneuvering ship lose for non-agresive play?

I have never played a game where a TACing ship won, a ship at speed zero and TACing in my experience was a ship that didn't have enough warp left to truly maneuver and was nearly dead anyway. Also isn't just a big target for seeking weapons?

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 06:40 pm: Edit

It's certainly not a tournament-only problem. In fact, the tournament is the only reason for not changing it right this moment, because such a change (whatever form it may take) will tip the balance somewhat between ships. Which tournament ships might benefit is a discussion for another board, specifically this one.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Shawn, yeah, but then the damage is all ready done. Better that the issue do not come up at all.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:17 pm: Edit

And this is what I was afraid of when I saw the discussion of anti-superstack rules. What's next?

People have been playing SFB for 30+ years. If it wasn't a problem before, it shouldn't be changed now. Captain's/Doomsday was supposed to be the final word. Of course new supplements can *add* stuff. But they shouldn't change existing stuff, especially the way the game's been played for 30 years.

I do not want to see any changes to the core rules of the game at this stage. People that want to play FedCom should play FedCom... keep the peanut butter out of my chocolate.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:42 pm: Edit

If there is a change to be implement (which I would discourage), I would say (and I'm using terms that may not be correct) use the "announce the directed" (like mauler ships) facing rule.
Have it apply for tacs, and make tacs first to move. I agree, tacs moving last promotes starcastling.
A ship approaching a starcastled ship should be able to see what direction its enemy my tend to tac AND react AFTER it has tac'd.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:56 pm: Edit

When I attempted to start this charge some number of years ago, the general consensus was that:
@@@@@
A) TACs coming after regular movement made is simply too advantageous to stop and TAC.

B) The obvious way to fix it is to make TACs happen as if you are speed 0, rather than how it currently works.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with tweaking the rules such that Warp TACs happened as if you were speed 0, and your single impulse TAC happens after regular movement.

I'd certainly want to see some significant playtesting of this before it got implemented, but I like that idea that it is being considered.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 08:38 pm: Edit

The only issue would be if there is a particular race which basically must stop and TAC to survive against another particular race (not simply talking player style, but that it just has to happen in order to win).

If this isnt the case, then the change proposed above is exactly what is needed.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Play testing? My brain without a board has playtested countless times. This is a no-brainer. TACs should be last and they should be telegraphed.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Like the superstacks, I still am not seeing where the current rules are broke.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Here is my recomendation,

leave impulse tacs alone but make warp tac move as per normal movement precedence. That is if you warp tac is just one, then you make that tac in the order of precedence as speed one. If you have four warp tacs plotted then you tac as speed four. Any ship moving faster than speed four moves after you tac.
Treat warp tacs as warp movement.

This could really take the ick out of the super stack star castle.