The reasons I cited for being against the anti-superstack rule hold true for this as well. For those that aren't reading both threads, paraphrased:

I am not suggesting the number of players driven away by (TAC issue) is zero. However, I think the number of players driven away by this change (depending on how it is handled, not just by the company, but "in the wild" by gaming groups) will be larger. SFB players for the most part are tenacious and almost fanatical. A rules change (and that is what it will be) that invalidates the practices of established groups will put the choice before them: Ignore the change ("Optional" or otherwise), or accept the change. Not all groups will make the same decision.

Then when the members of said groups interact, arguments will ensue. Games will not be flown. Groups may fracture.

I know from personal experience that some players refused to switch to Captains and still (to this day) play Commander's edition - just adapting new modules to it, if they allow new modules at all. This means they are, for the most part, "cut off" from the current SFB community - which is a shame on both ends.

I know a friend who plays SFB who moved to a new city, met a group of SFB players, and never met with them again. It wasn't that they were creeps or he was a snob - he didn't like their house rules, preferring to play "by the book" as he learned it.

Not every SFB player follows this BBS, or even keeps up with Captain's Log. I see this as a significant change in the rules - enough that disparate groups will no longer be able to fly together unless they can agree on "house ruling" or "new rules".

Based on my own experience at running (non-tourney) SFB events at cons... SFB is a thinning crowd. I taught a bunch of new players the game, only to be heckled by FedCom players DURING THE DEMO ("Why are you playing that old dinosaur game? Come check out THIS game!"). Sure enough, after the con, I spotted my new recruits carrying FedCom books.

I expect a change in long-standing rules (and the tactics therein) has the potential to exacerbate this trend. Not just for the superstack - this will smack of "Addenda" ("What rules will they change next?") As a long-time SFB player, I don't want to see that.

I am not in any way trying to riot or sow discontent. Simply expressing my views on the game I love and hold dear.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Well, if you really want to stop star-castling, forget the the TAC and *really* fix the problem at the core: make specific reinforcement only possible by reserve power. If you want to allocate reinforcement, you must use general reinforcement. Do that, and the star-castle is pretty much dead, or at least way less effective.

As to Dale's point, I disagree. A game must be able to change and grow or it will become dead. Something like the superstack changes or my suggestion above would be major, but changing the precedence of the TAC is NOT major. Quite frankly, adding XP refits, megapacks, and other things of their ilk are way more fundamental and serious changes than changing the precedence of when TACs are performed.

Seriously. J2 and R10 did more to change the nature of SFB than making TACs work first ever could. J2 introduced changes that affect *every single* starship in the game. It also completely changed carrier battles forever. R10 massively changed plasma. Yet you don't argue against the changes they incurred.

As long as product is to be published, SFB will change. And it will change in ways that your or I may or may not like. But change it must, or it will die and become irrelevant. And for all of the "death" of SFB, SVC has said that the Basic Set still outsells either FC:KB or FC:RB. Doesn't sound dead to me.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 09:37 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I know from personal experience that some players refused to switch to Captains and still (to this day) play Commander's edition - just adapting new modules to it, if they allow new modules at all. This means they are, for the most part, "cut off" from the current SFB community - which is a shame on both ends.

---

---

Quote:

I expect a change in long-standing rules (and the tactics therein) has the potential to exacerbate this trend. Not just for the superstack - this will smack of "Addenda" ("What rules will they change next?") As a long-time SFB player, I don't want to see that.

---

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 09:42 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Well, if you really want to stop star-castling, forget the the TAC and *really* fix the problem at the core: make specific reinforcement only possible by reserve power

---

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Mike,

Well of course you'd feel that way. It's yet another way to make SFB more like Fed Commander. That seems to be the goal of most of these suggested changes, despite the protests to the contrary.

Games may need to add additional material, but they do NOT need to change the fundamental way basic play occurs. That way will cost you established players, I guarantee it.

Adding XP, megapacks, and such, does change play - in later years, when they become available. Changing TACs (or Superstacks) changes play throughout all the ages. It's not adding new toys and methods - it's CHANGING existing ones.

Xander, these kinds of changes are opening the floodgates for changes ala 80's addenda. The mere fact this topic cropped up within days of the anti-superstack thread is proof of that.

You say "change is good", but I for one do not welcome such change for change's sake (or to address the complaints of a few). SFB has been fine with superstacks and Warp TACs for the 18 years *I* have been playing.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 11:07 pm: Edit

It would be way too disruptive to make such a change days before Origins.

Tacs work the way they do. Having them work as proposed would be good. Changing the rules would be bad. In this case I believe the bad out-weighs the good. You want to change tacs without causing disruption? Make the new rule an optional rule.

My vision of Star Fleet Revolution Edition would include a fix to the Tac rules, along with simplification and streamlining of nearly everything else. On the other hand, the work involved in creating SFB-RE would be an enormous gamble and the risk or reward to the company would be high. I can't decide which side of the risk/reward relationship this would fall on, but it would certainly be fun to be a part of. That said, I can't see SFB-RE trumping the MSSB, which is a guaranteed hit seller.

For SFB to more efficiently capture the new players Fed Com is introducing I see SFB-RE as a necessary course of action, eventually, but it will probably knock 2-3 other products off the schedule, resulting in delayed sales.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Steve,

I fully understand that my last suggestion would radically change several other things besides the star castle. That is fully intended.

However, this does not *prevent* Orions from reinforcing. I just means they have to use general reinforcement instead of specific reinforcement. This does make it much more inefficient, but it is still useful.

(Also note that I only offer the idea as an "out of the box" concept. I know it will never get used, but hopefully it will get people to think of other approaches.)

Dale,

I resent that accusation. I am not, in fact, trying to make SFB more like FC. I am more than willing to use tools from FC where it makes sense, but that is a long, long way from me trying to put FC rules into SFB. (When you get right down to brass tacks, I should really be accused of trying to put too much SFB into FC. I'm not really, but I have been having fun with BoM.)

Besides, look at my suggestions:
- Leave super stack alone.
- Change the order of TACs to where they really belong.
- Change reserve.

None of these are actually FC rules. The last suggestion has the germination of the idea from FC, but is very different from the FC rules.

I learned something else from FC, too. What I learned is that if something is wrong, and is not working as intended, fix it. It will cause some pain. It will cause an uproar. But, if it needs to be fixed, it is probably going to work better to get it fixed.

So, if the star castle tactic is too effective, and if that tactic doesn't work the way it is supposed to, then fix it. In the end, the desired result is gained and the uproar will eventually die down.

Besides, the only change I really would like to see is the TAC precedence. Its current location is just glaring, and I think putting it right would be a good thing irrespective of any other possible desired effects.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Changing reinforcement would drasticly change much more than star castling and would be a monumental mistake. IMO

Just make warp tacs the same as warp movement for order of precedence. It has far, far less impact on other general play and tactics and makes star castling much harder. Again, leave impulse tacs alone, just change warp tacs to be movement.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 12:32 am: Edit

Deleted by author, thought it might throw fuel onto a fire which didn't need fuelling.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 07:50 am: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>Well, if you really want to stop star-castling, forget the the TAC and *really* fix the problem at the core: make specific reinforcement only possible by reserve power.>>

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this.

Reinforcement is not an issue, as it comes with a straight forward trade off--every point of power you have in reinforcement is power you don't have somewhere else useful. And as weapons convert power into more than 1:1 damage, the reinforcing ship is generally on the losing end of the equation. Except for the Orions, but they need that reinforcement and their ship designs assume they will have it.

TAC sequencing does not come with a trade off--TACing ships are simply more maneuverable than moving ships--you can always face the direction you want to face when you want to face it. Attacking a TACing opponent is just throwing yourself on a pike most of the time.

If Warp TACs happened as if you were speed 0 (I'd be totally happy with the compromise of "Warp TACs happen as if you were speed 0, your single Impulse TAC happens after regular movement"), stopping and TACing would come with a significant tactical trade off; you stop and can potentially protect down shields and push all your extra power into guns and reinforcement, but you aren't more maneuverable than the guy who had the audacity to foolishly put power into movement.

In regards to the side discussion of "But rules changes are bad!", I'd like to suggest that that get tabled till later. Yes. Rules changes always make people upset. That is simply how these things go. I think the more important issue here is "will this change make the game work better"? If the answer is "Yes", then you worry about if it will make people mad.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 10:16 am: Edit

Just say no.

No to changes to shield reinforcement.

No to changes to TACs.

There is no problem. These rules have been part of the game for decades, and everyone is used to them. Changing them will have unpredictable results for different technology combinations, and thus the changes are bad for the game IMO.

By Andrew J. Koch (Droid) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Observations and Opinions:

I have never seen most of the people posting in this thread play a game of Star Fleet Battles. I'm not saying they don't, just I haven't seen them.

Those who do play often know how to handle a taccing ship.

The days of frivolous Star Castling are OVER. ANCIENT HISTORY

The reason a taccing ship is tough to attack is 30% it's ability to change shields after movement, 70% the fact that it has a bunch of excess power for OLs, tractor, reinforcement etc. You have a limited ability to change shield facings. A clever opponent overcomes this ability every time.

Changing the tac rules will just about kill ships like the Fed, it will enhance seeking weapon users ( who already have the advantage in the tourney), and especially make the Orion a monster. Most people need to park v the Orion at some point.


There has been a great reluctance, as in no desire, can't be bothered, to mess with ship balance in recent years, and changing the Tac rules will create a neccesity for this.

So I say no changes. Just say no. Not me, not now!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Peter Bakija:

You suggest that warp tacs take place as if at speed zero but I think there are possible cases where order of precidence will get confusing. I think if they are handled as if they were number of tacs equals warp speed in the movement order of precidence then that would makes things simpler. For the most part, it means most ships will move after but in a few cases where similar speed happens the regular movement order rules would apply (except in the case of the impulse tac).
The rule change would simply be correcting a "misinterpretation" to make warp tacs be warp movement in the same hex, and preserve the impulse tac that SVC says in canon.

Everyone else: I think the above will certainly cause some adjustement of tactics but sharply address starcastling (and particularly the starcastling superstack), without causing the short term parking tactic. If you are parking for defensive purposes (and in the tourney it has to be pretty short term least you lose to non-agression) the impulse tac warp tac combo should still be as effective. You plot warp tacs that you use generally, but when things get really tight you can still use your impulse tac to preserve that crucial moment top precidence turn. However, if you choose to starcastle long term, making warp tac's occure during regular movement precidence will make that harder and maybe tip the scales to 'not worth it'.
If your tactics rely on movement precidence then get moving, right?

I haven't thought about it in a long time but it hasn't sat right with me since forever that tacs gains movement precedence over everything else. In the SFU faster movement gains initiative. Speed 30 gains initiative over speed one, but not speed zero? Huh? OK, the impulse tac is something special, but warp tacs, IMO, should be warp movement.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Loren wrote:
>>You suggest that warp tacs take place as if at speed zero but I think there are possible cases where order of precidence will get confusing.>>

I don't know that it would. You make warp TACs as if you are speed 0. When order of precidence is needed, you use the existing rules--Turn Mode, Nimble, Shuttles/Fighters, whatever.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:02 pm: Edit

I agree with Ted and Andy. Reasons have already been stated. I'd say no change.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:24 pm: Edit

The same would apply to my proposed system only 1 warp tac would be consider speed one, 2 warp tacs = speed 2 etc. So if you have one ship with four warp tacs and one with two, the ship with four has move precidence. Regular precidence rules still apply.

A ship with four warp tacs would have precidence over a ship moveing speed three as well, but not over a ship moving speed five.

This means that you only have to look up alternative precidence methodes when the tac and speed match.

For the most part only a crippled admin shuttle would not be able to gain initiative over a warp tac'ing ship.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Dale: You said it hasn't been a problem and we shouldn't change it. We may or may not change it, but it HAS been a CONSTANT problem. About 3/4 of the judge instructions deal with this one issue. That pretty much proves it is and has been a problem. You're advising that we not fix a known problem.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Steve: In my experience in campaign and fleet play, it has not been a problem. Parking in the face of a determined squadron is just asking to get blasted by enough firepower to easily overcome any reinforcement.

In tournament play, everyone now knows (probably due to the judge instructions you mention above) that if the guy parks and castles, you can pull off out of overload range, wait him out, and call a judge to zap him for non-aggression. That's if they don't just find a way to kill him for stopping. I fully agree with Andy Koch's observations and opinions on that matter, above.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 03:05 pm: Edit

"you can pull off out of overload range, wait him out, and call a judge to zap him for non-aggression."

And the game should NOT BE PLAYED THAT WAY.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Then change it for the tournaments, tournament SFB and Regular SFB are different games anyway.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 03:25 pm: Edit

We may change it just for Tournaments, or for both, or not at all.

We'll discuss it on the drive and announce the decision Wednesday night at 7pm.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 03:27 pm: Edit

At noon tomorrow, I will lock this topic. Petrick and I will have both read it. We'll discuss it on the trip and announce a decision at the Singalong on Wednesday night. The singalong is at 7pm, and the announcement will come along sometime during the event.

By Clayton Krueger (Krieg) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Why not keep the rules the same except if you want to tac after everyone else moves, you must use double or even triple the amount of energy. If you tac before movement, it would only cost 1 unit of energy as it does now. Gear how fast the ship turns to how much power is applied. Slow tac vs fast tac. This would eat up some of the power a speed 0 ship has for reinforcement, weapons, etc. Maybe the imp tac could always be a 'slow' tac.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Any of these rules changes will have a huge impact on the play balance of the tournament ships. Play balance has been extremely carefully crafted over the years for the tourney ships, to the extent that we argue extensively over whether adding a couple of power to the Andro is justified, or adding a G rack to the Fed is something that should be done.

These proposed rules changes will have a much larger impact on play balance in the tourney setting, which I believe will be unpredictable. Different ships will be affected differently, and the balance effect of a rule change will also vary based on what the opponent ship is.

For example, any matchup against the Orion will be substantially affected. Ships with worse turn modes will have a more difficult time against the Orion due to the inability to stop, TAC, and get the right shield to bear. Restricting TACs will have the effect of making the Orion more powerful relative to those ships. Note this issue has nothing to do with being non-aggressive; it's simply a fact of facing the Orion.

Changing shield reinforcement will also have unpredictable effects on tourney play balance. Changing both shield reinforcement and TACs will disproportionately increase the unpredictability of the effect on play balance due to the issues of dealing with both rules changes at the same time.

I understand that Fed Com has effectively incorporated similar changes, and that the game works wonderfully well. However, as has been pointed out, the games are quite different - and Fed Com does not have a decades-long history of finely tuned and well balanced tourney cruisers.

Additionally, in my fairly extensive experience in competitive tournament play, I generally do not have issues with opponents being non-aggressive or otherwise abusing TACs or shield reinforcement. For those times where it *has* been an issue, the evolving rules on non-aggression appear to solve the problem nicely.

If we are so worried about extremely minor changes to ship SSDs regarding tourney play balance, IMHO we should be *even more* cautious about rules changes because the ships all use different technologies - and again the effect of rules changes will be different according to the play style of each different technology.

Therefore, based on the unpredictable effects on play balance, especially in the finely tuned tourney environment, I urge ADB to reject any rules changes to TACs or shield reinforcement (or superstacks in regular SFB) as not being good for the game.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 03:57 pm: Edit

By and large, "Why not..." is a bad way to start something in this topic. It doesn't come across the right way. (Doing it that way provokes the flippant answer "Because I think something else is better" without any real thought.) Things like "I don't see why we don't..." have the same reaction.

A better way might be "I propose that..."