Optional advanced rule both sides must agree to;

Random Damage Allocation
When a systems hit generated by using the DAC, whether weapon or otherwise, has multiple potential choices decide the hit by rolling randomly for them. Directional requirements for phasers still applies but the damage precedence would be preceded by random selection.

Exception: When all connected boxes of one type are the exact same exact status, like unguarded APR or all fired phaser ones with the same exact firing arc or warp boxes for the same engine etc.

Some consequences of the rule:
A tractor in use might be randomly destroyed, unfired bearing weapons may also be destroyed as well as shuttles in non-empty bays etc. It's definitely a knife that could cut both ways but add some realism to the game rather than having the most convenient choice made for the target and thereby adding in the Murphy factor. Of course the tractor being used might not be hit as well and if that was planned for...

The rule could also be an interesting Tournament rule, possibly speeding up Tournemant play. The few extra seconds to randomly roll which system box gets destroyed could be balanced by system boxes that would otherwise be unchosen potentially tipping the game balance in favor of the more aggressive party. Or not.

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit

What? No one likes Murphy? Hah then I say! May Murphy visit all my opponents this year during the most crucial point in our matches... (hey you never know )

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit

C'Mon. A second damage roll? How much (more) do you really want to slow this game down?

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

It's only a second damage roll if the same type of system is in a different status. If you have all unfired phasers of the same type/arc you can pick it cause it's pointless to roll then. It's only if there's a choice between same types of systems (excluding stuff like individual warp boxes) that you'd make a roll for it.

As for slowing the game down;
How many games are dragged on because someone fires a few weapons in anticipation of the mizia effect and those are the conveniently destroyed ones or are tractoring a seeking shuttle to death drag it or a drone one hex away from impacting and it's always the other tractor that gets destroyed or the other shuttle bay (the empty one next to the Scatterpack/SS/Weasel that dies...

Think how much quicker some games would be if the unused disruptor/photon/plasma/unlaunched type IV drone etc gets destroyed because someone waited just an impulse to long to use it. Compare the two seconds to roll which photon is hit versus and extra full turn or three or ten of play and I think it actually might speed things up because of two factors.
The first is that more weapons might be fired at once instead of piecemeal against mizia effects. Being more aggressive tends to mean shorter games.
The second is that most people can't afford critical system losses in the gameplan and it will happen more often than not. FED CA example; If 4 photons bear it's a 25% chance of hitting the singular fired one versus 75% of getting an unfired one. If 8 phasers (out of the 10) bear, and three are fired it's 67.5% that an unfired phaser will be hit under this. This doesn't even address the odds on other things like hitting prepared shuttles vs empty bays, "wrong" tractor or unused labs etc.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

I think SFB is WAY past this kind of monkeying with the core rules.

An optional rule, maybe.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 08:53 am: Edit

Oh contrair (sp)!
My group played this way for a couple years a ways back. yeah, it slowed the DAC process a little, but it added realism that we all enjoyed. If you only loaded half your heavy weapons, there was a 50% chance that you'd lose one of your loaded weapons. If you hadn't fired your phasers yet, you might lose a 360 phaser instead of LF-L phaser. If you have someone tractored, there might be a chance for the tractored ship to knock out that tractor beam (c'mon, isn't this trek or not?).
An unused Transporter could be knocked out before it could be used. A ship with one battery left with power could find it knocked out.
Than again, luck could be on your side and any of those things could go in your favor.
It was fun! And it felt a little more real.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit

I disagree that it makes the game shorter. If you destroy unfired weapons, that means it just takes that much longer to charge them back up to fire again, all other things being equal.

Allowing players to destroy already fired weapons means that there will be more damage done to ships per turn.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 07:01 pm: Edit

It doesn't make things shorter, but it makes tactics a little more realistic. One strategy is to fire some heavy weapons in expectation that they will be destroyed in subsequent turns. Under current rules, you are virtually guarenteed that if you do get torp hits on you, you can destroy the ones already fired. With this proposal, there is risk that you will have to destroy an unfired heavy weapon.
Bear in mind, the quote "Allowing players to destroy already fired weapons means that there will be more damage done to ships per turn" is not entirely true. What's more damaging than an unfired weapon or a system that is critical to the tactics of the opposing player? A blown tactic can cause far more damage given certain circumstances.
Just my 2 cents

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit

If you destroy an opponents unused system it can't hurt you and you're in a better position to deal more agressively with him than if he had it later on...

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Correct.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:56 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If you destroy an opponents unused system it can't hurt you and you're in a better position to deal more agressively with him than if he had it later on.

---

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If he destroys your unfired weapon, you are going to have to be less aggressive as well.

---

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Give it a try, playtest it some weekend.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit

My group playtested it for some time. It works wonders. I still don't know why we went back to the original procedure. But it was fun in my opinion.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Must have been before my time, Glenn.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Would this also apply to destroying batteries? Rather than the assumption the empties are hit first?

While unrealistic, the "empties are always hit first" is kind of useful as a baseline.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Yes, it would apply to batteries. One strategy would be to pull partial power out of each battery (thereby guarenteeing two things. 1. A battery hit would result in losing less than a point of power and 2. A battery hit would automatically result in the loss of some power).
So, you'd have to decide to gamble or not.

Robert. I think we reverted back to the original DAC system when you and Steve showed up (roughly the same time).

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 04:19 am: Edit

I am teaching a guy how to play. He is a pc gamer; armada, bridge commander, etc. Biggest complaint he has about SFB is damage allocation takest too long to do.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Roll big sets of pairs of dice....5 pairs, 10 pairs, so on. Take a covered DAC and have him call out the numbers while you mark the DAC. Once all internals are rolled, then you read the internals in order, skipping previous bold hits.

Its very close to the real thing (quite often there is no difference) and is much faster.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit

I played this way for a while back in Cdr's Ed. I don't honestly recall if we were intentionally deviating from rules as written or if we had misunderstood them; this was a while ago. It wasn't overly problematic (and it does feel more realistic) but nowadays we try to play more-or-less `straight' SFB... Balance can change in unexpected ways, it seems, when you deviate from how things are `supposed' to work in the game.