Actually for a pure "intro" teaching game, I can and have thrown away far more rules.

My point was that it might be possible to do some pruning of rules that are either overly complex and/or have minor utility. If possible in such a way as to make the game more approachable to newcomers AND still retain enough depth to be an interesting tournament for sharks.

As to being "crazy" - as someone who started playing when plotted movement was standard, there were no overloads, and drones where speed 8 - I can tell you the game plays quite well without 95% of the current rules.

The Andro should *never* be in tournament. I hope they *never* return.

The more ships and the more different rules, that harder it is to keep things balanced and harder it is to teach the game.

Now getting rid of speed changes in mid-turn would be tough for the really experienced folks. Probably never fly. Honestly, it's not a rule I really want to get rid of... But at same time, it definitely complicates the game.

On the other hand, H&R raids/guards? Very marginal utility, low probability of success. Tournament play would not suffer *at all* if these were removed from tourney.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 09:26 am: Edit

I'm putting on my marketing hat.

Who is your intended audience for this?

What are they playing currently?

Have they already built up a negative emotional association with your existing brand?

How do you propose to bridge them from what they're currently playing to this proposed idea?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 11:17 am: Edit

Bret wrote:
>>Now getting rid of speed changes in mid-turn would be tough for the really experienced folks. Probably never fly. Honestly, it's not a rule I really want to get rid of... But at same time, it definitely complicates the game.>>

Plotted mid turn speed changes aren't particularly complicated in and of themselves, and one of the most important rules in the game to understand, so if coming up with a really pared down rules set for an "intro" tourney or whatever, I'd still want to see plotted mid turn speed changes (which, really, should just be basic, entry level rules anyway).

On the other hand, I can *totally* see removal of *un* plotted mid turn speed changes in the name of simplifying things, if that is a plan.

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 04:30 pm: Edit

To me this seems like a huge amount of work for a very limited return. If you want a slimmed down tourney, use Cadet ships and the Cadet rules.

By Andrew Granger (Captaincf) on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 01:34 am: Edit

What is the status of the Andromedan TC? Is the most recent available for download?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 12:18 pm: Edit

The current playtest version is available on SFBOL. I don't know that there is a version available for downloading on this here site.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Yeah, the 2006 version on the downloads page is not the current version.

The current playtest version (which is almost workable if a bit weak currently) has 2xTRH, 6xP2, and 3 total batteries. I think 28 static power. Fewer cargo and hull than previous versions.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 02:20 pm: Edit

SO has the recent playtest version officially replaced the 2006 version? As I've been told, the 2006 version is what was published in T2012. That makes it the sanctioned Andro, correct?

By Andrew Granger (Captaincf) on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I think I have T2012. So that is the most recent?

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 03:55 pm: Edit

The Andro for sanctioned events has 2 TRLs. The playtest version is just that, still in playtest.

That said, the playtest version is a much better fit than the current sanctioned disaster.

By Andrew Granger (Captaincf) on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 03:47 am: Edit

The 2012 tournament book has a sanctioned version with 3 TRLs and a playtest with 2 TRH.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 10:26 am: Edit

Hmm. Well, the current sanctioned version, I think, is the one with 3xTRL, 6xP2, 4x battery.

The current playtest version (which is, again, almost balanced; it is still a little on the weak side--most folks feel it needs a couple points of extra power) has 2xTRH, 6xP2, 3 batteries, probably like 6 hull and 4 cargo.

It should get posted somewhere. I'll see if I can get the web guy to work on that.

By Andrew Granger (Captaincf) on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Do they still need playtest reports on that.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Yes.

By Brett W Johnson (Bjohnson) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Speaking of rules that would likely never fly... But is at least conceptually interesting...

Regarding Fed changes... Has anyone ever seriously considered a 5 photon Fed?

I've thought a bit about it... 5 in the front is obviously way OP and even 4 front + 1 rear is too powerful, since it not only allows tactical flexibility, but also serves as a free photon hit as the Fed closes and crunches...

But what about 3 FA, 2 RA? Weakens the alpha strike, while increasing it's overall ability to take damage. Also gives the Fed the ability to discourage pursuit after the (weaker) alpha...

Thinking about the Federation and their more peaceful philosophy, having some heavy weapons available to discourage pursuit would seem to make sense. In opposition to this would be the Klingon attack philosophy which should locate their weapons up front to support their aggressive nature.

Thoughts?

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 08:25 pm: Edit

My general issue with it would be that it wouldn't match any Fed that I'm aware of. The only two with a RA Photon that I can think of are the HDW and the BB. Neither of which is really the material of which TCs are made.

What problem are you perceiving that would require such a change to the existing TC? Is that perception confirmed out through the RPS?

By Brett W Johnson (Bjohnson) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Just trying to brainstorm... There has been a lot of discussion over the years about the Fed having issues... The current thought to add a G rack ties into that...

4 forward photons allows the infamous R8 Jackpot Gamble...

The Fed lacks much in the way of tactical flexibility.

As to it "not matching" I view that as largely irrelevant. The original game had ED only available to the Feds, but now everyone has it. Lots of the TCs have changed over time. The original D7 (not tournament) rear weak shields were quite viable in the original game (vs. Fed CA w/ plotted movement).

I'm not *advocating* this change, I'm just curious what people think.

In my experience the Fed has a lot of issues with plasma ships. Would this variant help that? Hurt that? Not sure...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 09:40 pm: Edit

>>In my experience the Fed has a lot of issues with plasma ships. Would this variant help that? Hurt that? Not sure...>>

To be fair, I think what the Fed has trouble with is *cloaking* plasma ships. Against the Gorn, the Fed doesn't do that badly. You spend a lot of time running away from plasma, but eventually you'll get a R8 or closer shot without taking a ton of damage (often on a flank), and good shot can make things tilt in the Fed's favor quickly.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 10:53 am: Edit

On the matching point, I'd point out that while the TCs have changed over the years gaining a battery here or loosing a hull there, they generally share the design characteristics of the non-tourney ships of their type. Arcs, shield weighting, hull distribution, number of bays, etc. all generally match up between the TC and non-TC ships providing a similar 'flight feel' between them.

On the G rack, I'd point out that the difference that's being discussed with adding the G rack is the difference between having the TC be a CC and a CC+. In fact, every last box of the + refit has been given to the TC except the G rack. A single drone rack, particularly a G rack, provides a good drone protection - which as generally hurts against a Zin it could definately use without greatly overpowering it against say the plasma boys. One of the arguments against is that it changes the balance of power with the Klingon.

The problem as I see it with cloaking plasma is that the cloaking ship can give the Fed an unassailable shift, on per chance the worst hitting weapon in the game. If you're at R0, you're still shooting as thought your at R5 and taking feedback and after you fire, the opponent is coming up and gacking you with plasma before you can get away.

I am fairly sure that shifting from 4/0 to 3/2 FA/RA photons would greatly change the Fed tactics. I'm not seeing how it either improves the Fed against a cloaked target (it'll wait till the bum blast comes in then gack the Fed at close range). It will slow the fed down considerably (need to load another photon). It doesn't improve the Fed at all against the Zin.

I also don't see how it expands the tactical range of the Fed. I'll admit that as somewhat a fault of the Fed. The tactics manual for that boat alone is a lesson in probability. However, where the current tactic pretty much is "get as close as you dare and pull the trigger," with the 3/2 version the tactic would be "get as close as you dare, pull the trigger, HET and pull the trigger again".

The power usage is going to be a problem in my mind. You have 34 warp. You currently need 8 of that for holding overloads (16 on a balanced load turn) and the rest can go to movement. After the change to pull a full attack run you need 15 if you're holding and 25!!! warp (on a balanced load cycle) to pull off the full attack. That means you're at best doing speed 9. I run away ... at speed 10. After the first shot, I'm gambling that I'll make the HET roll and then the Fed is picking up the 'DisDev roulette' facet off the Andro, which I'm not sure helps the ship.

You could say "well, you don't have to overload all the photons" and that is true. However, if the Fed isn't getting the value off of it's RA photons, you're just depleting his alpha strike which doesn't help the ship. If the shot is going to be that hard to get it needs to be large.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 11:02 am: Edit

A 5th photon would be a large help to the Fed vs anyone - for zero power. It would protect the loaded photon torpedoes from lucky hits from small volleys (ie range 4-5 vs many opponents).

A Fed doesn't have RA photons.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 11:57 am: Edit

Richard, I'd totally agree with you if you had a 4/1 FA/RA setup. That would be a HUGE help for exactly the reason you state. The Fed has to generally fire one photon on the way in as he's got to assume he's going to lose one to enemy fire before he gets to a range at which he's actually likely to hit.

However, at 3/2 FA/RA the Fed starts needing to get the additional damage out of the rear photon in order to justify the extra work to flip round and get the pair in arc.

By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 12:36 pm: Edit

I am still mystified as to why the Fed doesn't have 40 power like the other energy hungry cruisers.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Why are we talking about RA photons on a Fed TCC?

That's never going to happen.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Droid, good question. To the best of my knowledge, the Fed doesn't have RPS problems that would require it to have 2 extra warp power. If it had that extra warp, might it not start having RPS problems?

Richard, I think we are because it was proposed. I think it's a bad idea, personally, but until the I hear from someone named Steve "it's never going to happen," I presume the idea still has a chance.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Well, I would assume it doesn't unless he said otherwise.

I base that on a comparison between sanctioned tournament ships and the ships they are based on. The most radical changes (that I am aware of) might be the ISC TC (a very stripped down CA), the Andromedan Krait (a hybrid somewhere between a Python and a Conquistador) and the Hydran TLM (LM with 360 phasers - something not found on standard Hydran CCs but present on their CCHs.

Even in these ships, they use weapon arcs and types found on standard ships of their races.

RA heavy weapons found on an empire's Tournament Ship when their normal doctrine does not include RA heavy weapons would be a RADICAL departure from what is found on sanctioned ships.

Certainly people can propose radical changes, like a Lyran using drones, or a KE hull with 45 warp and a one move cost, but in all such cases, I feel safe in saying it will never be sanctioned.

And I feel safe in saying so about RA photon torpedoes.

Unless of course the tournament and the game themselves are radically altered, but that's a different topic altogether.