OK... I'm an on-again, off again SFB player with a large collection of SFB products. That said, here's my problem:

The 'Academy' module says it comes with a 60 page rulebook and that the 'Graduation' module will upgrade it to the full 'Klingon Border' set. As I almost always played Romulan or Hydrans in SFB, would purchasing the 'Academy' module and then (if I like the game) following up by buying the 'Romulan Attack' or 'Distant Kingdoms' modules give me the necessary rules to play everything I was buying?

It just seems like I'd be missing something, perhaps because I'm used to having such a monstrous set of rulebooks.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 11:39 am: Edit

Academy+Graduation = Klingon Border.

Klingon Border has (surprise) no Roms in it.

You could buy Romulan Border instead of Academy+Graduation and have all the Roms you want.

Klingon Border and Romulan Border have the same hard-printed map panels, the same rulebook (except for the scenarios and ship descriptions), and the reference cards, dice, marker, and so forth. They have different counters and ship cards.

You could buy Academy and then buy Romulan Attack (or one of the Romulan boosters) and have a workable game set that included Romulans. It would be missing some ship types, but it would be a working game engine.

By Jamie Carney (Carthaginian) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 11:54 am: Edit

Wow... straight form the top!
Thank You.
The reason I was thinking about doing it that way was $60 + S&H is a big chunk of change to try and slip by the new wife. ;) The purchase of two smaller modules for roughly half that is a bit easier to hide... like cloaking a WE instead of a K7R. Thanks for the explination.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 12:43 pm: Edit

And that is why I always tell guys I know who get engaged to go out and buy what they want NOW!!!

You want that 62" flat screen TV? Better get it NOW before you have to ask permission. Otherwise, you may never get the chance again.

Back to the actual discussion, you could buy Academy and, if you like it, buy Graduation and Romulan Space. That will get you all of the ships from both Border products, but let you do it in a more cost efficient manner. (Though you will only get one rulebook and one set of map panels.)

Also, don't forget to check out Communique. Even just with Academy, using Communique will provide you with a LOT of ships to try out and test drive.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 01:13 pm: Edit

You could also just buy the rulebook and one booster pack and use old counters and maps from SFB. That would be down to about $20.

By Michael Bennett (Mike) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 05:11 pm: Edit

SVC's last suggestion was the route that I took and I don't regret it. I had boo-koodles of old SFB counters, maps, etc. With the FedComm rulebook, I had a complete game.

I've since bought Orions Attack and a few secondhand minis, but that is about it. Communique has been great for supplying many, many ship diagrams.

Of course, upon seeing what I had, some others went whole hog and bought lots of stuff...

By Jamie Carney (Carthaginian) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Thanks a bunch guys... I just purchased the FC: Academy module and downloaded all the Communique PDF's (drooling as I went). I found FC: Academy pretty cheap online, and between that and Communique, I'll be a happy camper till the end of Nursing School.

Mike - Thanks for the replies on BOTH boards (that was me on the FC boards as well). I bought most everything that I wanted before the engagement, but this one was one I didn't find out about until recently. I'd quit keeping up with the SFU 4 years ago due to lack of opponents; I only recently discovered FC and am hoping it is simple enough to hook some folks on. After I play it a bit and get familiar, I plan on picking up a few spare rulebooks and trying to teach some friends.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Of course, the FIRST MISSIONS rulebook is on line for free and about half of the drone/disruptor/phaser/photon game. It's enough to play the game.

By Jamie Carney (Carthaginian) on Friday, November 14, 2008 - 12:27 am: Edit

I've spent most of the day pouring over the non-specific rules like movement, phasers and such. Unfortunately, the weapons in the First Missions aren't my favorites... but they will work nicely with a lot of the ships in the Communiques, and will ensure that I have a working knowledge of the game by the time the rest of it gets here, and will be excellent to train the non-SFU crowd, who will most likely want to play the flathe... er I mean Federation.

Thanks Gentlemen... thanks for the game, the incredible amount of support that ya'll give for it (for free, no less), and especially for the way that the people that actually build the rules are the first to jump out and explain them. This is the kind of support you get nowhere else in the gaming industry!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Mike West: would you check this topic and see if we can delete most of it? Let me know what archives can be deleted.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 05:17 pm: Edit

SVC: If you want to cut as much as possible, you could even cut down to just before Jamie Carney's November 12 post.

At the least, the January/February archives can be deleted.

If you cut the full load (to Jamie's post), then that will remove a bit more than 100 posts.

(Then, you could cut these two, too. )

By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 01:50 pm: Edit

In the new reference rulebook, rule 5P3b has an example where it mentions "Double and add four", referring to range, penalty for fire at a cloaked ship.

5P3c says that the penalty is +4 and half damage.

I couldn't find anywhere a rule that talked about doubling the range for cloaked ships.

So I am wondering if I am just blind or if the example is perhaps not clear or correct.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Sounds like an SFB holdover that should not have been in the example. I belive +4 and half damage is correct.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 04:47 pm: Edit

The "double and add four" seen in the (5P3b) example is a typo. It is not correct. It has always been, and still is +4 and half damage.

(I thought we already covered this. Musta been on the FC Forum.)

By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 04:15 pm: Edit

I seem to recall the same, but since it was still in the reference rulebook, wasn't sure.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:39 pm: Edit

I didn't catch it when reviewing for the RRB, and no one had mentioned it (that I remember) prior to the RRB coming out.

It happens. Unfortunately ...

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 12:12 am: Edit

Who moves first?

Ship A has turn mode A, Ship B has turn mode B. Both have a baseline speed of 16.

Ship B accelerates, so is now 16+1.

Standard movement would be:
Sub pulse 1 nobody moves.
Sub pulse 2 16+1 moves first then 16.
Sub pulse 3 16+1 moves.
Sub pulse 4 16+1 moves then 16.

But if Ship B then pays to decelerate then the following could happen. If Ship B decelerated in SP 2 then in SP4 it would move second. Is this correct?

By Joe Boorsten (Getterbeam) on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 01:53 am: Edit

James:
1) Your "standard movement" is backward; order of preference goes by speed first, then turn mode. So it would be...

16(A) and 16+1(B)

sub pulse 1: neither
sub pulse 2: 16(A) then 16+1(B)
sub pulse 3: 16+1(B)
sub pulse 4: 16(A) then 16+1(B)

2) If Ship B decelerates, that does not change the fact that it accelerated and is therefore faster. In effect, accelerating changes your baseline speed for that impulse (i.e. from "16" to "16+1").

If two ships with equal turn mode both accelerated, and then one decelerates, then the ship which decelerated is slower. But in the example you give, "16+1 and decelerated" is still faster than "16".

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Oops, I meant what you said about the order of standard movement. Faster is first, then better turn mode is first.

What I am trying to get at is whether a ship with an inferior turn mode can use a combination of acceleration and decelerations to outmaneuver a ship with a better turn mode. If they can do it as you describe it seams like a cheap trick and should be banned.

Which revision of the rules are you basing your answer on?

My understanding is based on the consolidated rules update list located here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/Commanders%20Circle/shipcards.shtml

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 11:35 pm: Edit

There is a paragraph that discusses this in the Rev5 rules. Basically, a deceleration and acceleration will (effectively) cancel each other out for the purposes of who is "faster". Likewise, assuming the same baseline speed and no acceleration, a ship that decelerates twice is "slower" than a ship that decelerates only once.

First, remember that baseline speed is the most important factor. If Ship 1 is moving baseline speed 16, and it accelerates for that impulse, and Ship 2 is moving baseline speed 24, and it decelerates for all three movements, Ship 2 is still "faster" because it has the higher baseline speed. All comments after this assume that the baseline speed of the two ships in question are the same.

To take James's example, we have two ships. Ship A is baseline speed 16 with a turn mode of A, and Ship B is baseline speed 16 with a turn mode of B. Ship B accelerates for the impulse in question. Movement is like Joe outlines:
sub-pulse 1: neither
sub-pulse 2: Ship A then Ship B
sub-pulse 3: Ship B
sub-pulse 4: Ship A then Ship B

However, given the same setup, let's assume Ship B decelerates in sub-pulse 2, as James postulated. Then we get:
sub-pulse 1: neither
sub-pulse 2: Ship A then Ship B (cancels move)
sub-pulse 3: Ship B
sub-pulse 4: Ship B then Ship A

So, what happens is that in sub-pulse 2, Ship B still moves last. Therefore Ship A has to move before he even finds out about Ship B's deceleration. In sub-pulse 4, however, Ship B's deceleration effectively cancels out his acceleration, leaving him "just speed 16". As such, they are at the same speed and Ship A's turn mode is the "tie breaker". As a result, in sub-pulse 4, Ship B now has to move first.

So, it would appear that James's concerns are directly addressed in the Rev5 rulebook. (The comment I mentioned should also be in the CRUL.)

By Joe Boorsten (Getterbeam) on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Out of curiosity, why is it that way? Wouldn't it be simpler just to say "acceleration changes the baseline speed for that impulse" and leave it there? Where's the benefit from needing to remember whether or not you decelerated?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 04:25 pm: Edit

I dunno. 'Cause that is how SVC wanted it to work? Seriously, it really isn't that difficult to manage, and it does provide some tactical cost to deceleration.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 09:47 pm: Edit

The benefit is that it prevents ship B from out maneuvering Ship A while going the same speed or slower (if you decelerate more than once). The ship with the better turn mode should maintain this advantage as much as possible and should not be outmaneuvered by an effectively slower ship for the cost of only 1 movement.

By Sean O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Acceleration (to get the faster bonus) and a deceleration = two movement, not one. And of course the ship with the better turn mode can maintain its superiority with the same trick.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 10:16 am: Edit

Changing the baseline speed for that one impulse would have no end of shockwaves through the rules system and be far harder to manage.