Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through February 16, 2018	25		02/16 10:06am
	Current X-Tech Rules	1		07/21 10:04am

Thank you for adding a second X-Ship Card to Communiqué #147.

It's interesting to compare how the current X-photon rules work compared to the current X-photon setup in SFB.

According to the post-Module X1R setup, fast-load photons in SFB are limited to range 15, while a fast-overload (which is still limited to range 8, and which cannot be held) can go no higher than a 12-point warhead.

Here, there seems to be no fast-overload option, and no range limitation either - but then, as there is no proximity warhead option in FC, the latter may be less of an issue, even with the bonus to-hit against non-X-ships. Although, I might personally prefer to have the range 15 limit in exchange for the (non-holdable) 50% fast-overload option.


Also, I was thinking a bit more about my earlier request for these Ship Cards to have Andromedan-style battery tracks, as shown in this example.

While I would still like to see it added for completeness' sake, there may not necessarily be the same onus on using it as there is on an Andromedan ship - the Andros need to be careful about how they manage their battery usage, whereas there are fewer circumstances in FC (relative to SFB) in which a non-Andromedan player would necessarily need to track which particular X-battery box is holding which amount of Energy Points during the course of a given turn.

So if it is (or has been) deemed that there is no need for such tracks here, well and good.


In addition, there is a note in Communiqué #147 about there being a number of additional X-Ship Cards on the way. Once they have been created, might it be an option to gather some of them into a playtest Ship Card pack, akin to the Omega and LMC playtest products, or the "Lost Empires" preview Ship Card pack?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 11, 2018 - 03:56 pm: Edit

I think we don't need to do anything with the ones in Communique (but we could for player convenience). The four for CL53 might make part of a pack, but the real product may be closer than you think. Or not.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, March 11, 2018 - 07:24 pm: Edit

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing X-Ships Attack jump the queue ahead of either Fighters Attack or Gunboats Attack, if that was on the table. But then, once all three were out, perhaps that might open the door for later modules which drew from more than one of these products at once. Perhaps, say, an "X-Raiders Attack", which included ships like NCC-1783 USS Field Marshal Colin Powell*; or a "Stellar Domination Ships Attack", which offered the likes of the B10S Insatiable?

But in the meantime, whichever of the three leading candidates for selection were to be chosen first, perhaps one (or both) of the others could have some sort of playtest e-pack worked up.


*If there weren't to be any F-111s in Federation Commander to make the historical GVX viable, perhaps the Powell could be modified into a "GPX" advanced medium PF tender for FC purposes? I was thinking that a GPX might make for an interesting "dark future" ship, at least.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Monday, March 12, 2018 - 05:36 am: Edit

Question about rules: If I fast-load a photon during Energy Allocation by paying four energy points but don't fire it, can I hold it over the turn break as normal?

If the answer to the previous question is "yes", can I overload the held fast-loaded photon?

If I start loading of an X-photon in Energy Allocation using the normal procedure for photons, can I finish it as a fast-load during the turn by applying the remaining arming energy?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, March 12, 2018 - 10:06 am: Edit

Terry,

Yes, you can pretty much do all of that. You may overload a single-turn armed photon, but not in the same turn. You may hold a photon armed in a single turn if you don't fire it. You may put 2 points in to a photon in EA, then complete it when fired. Unlike SFB, there is nothing special about a one-turn armed photon (other than it is armed in a single turn). Once armed, it is just a photon.

The one restriction is that if you put overload energy into an incomplete photon, you can't fire it in one turn because you can only fire normal loads in a single turn. Likewise, you can't dump overload energy into a single-turn armed photon, on the turn of arming, during the end-of-turn process. (You could after the next, turn, though.)

Gary,

I really think we need to focus on getting the three outlined modules done, first, before worry about how to combine them afterwards.

Also, considering that X-Ships Attack is likely to include far fewer ships than are even in the initial X1, there is plenty of potential for the rest of the ships in X1, not to mention X1R, to be included in follow-up Attack modules. But, shouldn't we see if the first X-Ships Attack module is successful, first?

And, if, after both Fighters Attack (or Gunboats Attack) and X-Ships Attack are published, you want to recommend the GVX for Captain's Log or Communique, great. But, until we know whether there is even an F-111 in FC, it is kinda pointless to speculate on the GVX.

But, seriously, we have just seen the second X-ship with extremely preliminary rules. We have seen only a few carriers, and but a single super-provisional gunboat. Let's focus on these three modules first, OK?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, March 12, 2018 - 12:29 pm: Edit

One extra note: The range notice for disruptors was intended to say range 10 or 15 is extended to range 25.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 23, 2019 - 12:20 pm: Edit

There is a preview of X-SHIPS ATTACK in CL53 with updated rules, four new DWXs, and the list of more DWXs to be in the next few issues of Communique.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 08:41 am: Edit

A few questions about the X-plasma rules in Captain's Log #53:

*Over in SFB, all X-ships with plasma-F or plasma-L launchers may use the plasma carronade firing option under (XFP14.0). Should this be the case for plasma-L launchers here in FC? And if so, would an ISC X-ship be able to fire all of its aft-mounted plasma-Ls "defensively" as carronades against shuttles, gunboats, or drones?

*Also over in SFB, all X-plasma is considered to be sabot (speed 40) plasma, under (XFP11.13). Since the sabot refit does not exist at present for non-X plasma in FC, would that oblige X-plasma in this game system to move at Speed 32 also, or has the door been left ajar for further consideration as to whether or not X-plasma could be set to speed 40 in the "final" version of the rules (even if non-X sabot plasma were to end up somewhere along the Borders of Madness)?

*On the other hand, there is a note regarding plasma-S launchers on X-ships that fast-loaded plasma may not be armed as enveloping or shotgun torpedoes. Since neither of those warhead options exist at present for non-X plasma in FC, is this line an "artifact" from SFB which could be safely deleted, or is the intent to keep the door ajar in case envelopers and/or shotgun warheads were to appear somewhere along the Borders of Madness?


On another topic, are there any plans to offer a ship in a future issue of Communiqué which could allow for the testing of the X-fusion beam rules offered in CL53? If offering a Lancer-X would be problematic (at least until or unless ADB were to decide on whether or not the Hydrans were to make use of the Stinger-X in FC), perhaps the Hunter-X frigate from Captain's Log #51 could be an option. Or, an Orion DWX Ship Card might allow potential playtesters to install X-fusion beams in its option mounts.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 02:11 pm: Edit

1) I assume everyone can use carronades. Steve has to verify, but, I assume everyone can use them with X-plasma.

2) No sabot. That doesn't apply to Federation Commander and I see no reason to even assume there would be any need or desire to do so.

3) That was a simple typo. There is no enveloping or shotgun plasma in Federation Commander. I even made a quick post in the CL53 topic stating such.

On ships, who knows? The next couple were stated directly in the list of X-ships for Federation Commander in CL53. After that, who knows.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Somebody tell Petrick to print me a Lancer-X and I'll put it in the next one after we finish the list that was in CL53. I think I only lack the Vudar on that list.

By Nicholas Sandberg (Savedfromwhat) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Hey Mike are you saying X plasma would be speed 32?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 10:01 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

2) No sabot. That doesn't apply to Federation Commander and I see no reason to even assume there would be any need or desire to do so.

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Nicholas,

Yes, I am saying X-plasma is speed 32.

Gary,

All X-rules that are out right now are playtest rules. If experience shows that something isn't working correctly, then a solution will need to be found.

However, it is extremely important to remember that when playtesting the point is to test what we have and see if there are problems, not see something you want to add and try to justify it. If you try to do the latter, you will find the amount of evidence required is actually higher.

By Art Trotman (Drneuro) on Monday, August 12, 2019 - 01:12 am: Edit

Mike, I have to admit that I do agree with Nicholas and I have play tested X-ship battles with plasma armed versus other and speed has always been an unfair mitigating factor that works against the plasma-armed player. It may not be a bad idea to consider changing that or at least speaking to Steve Cole about just saying that X ship plasmas move at speed 40 instead of calling it the Sabot rule and that way it is just another unique feature available only to X-ships and will not complicate federation commander any further. Just a thought. Also, it is good to note that there are at least five empires that can use plasmas, so this could become a widespread game play problem.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 12, 2019 - 10:36 am: Edit

I apologize for missing the most important part of this whole thing: playtest reports.

If you believe you have found an issue, then the best way to show this is with playtest reports. I am pretty sure there is something in the master index that has some more information on how to playtest, but here is the basic idea:
1) Play actual battles with the ships in question. Don't just mock them up, or fiddle with them in your head: Play them out.
2) Describe what you did and what your opponent did. Explain why you saw a problem (or that you didn't).
3) Do this multiple times, playing both sides. (Sometimes when you play the other side, you realize that the issue wasn't an unbeatable problem, but simply that you hadn't thought of something.)

And multiple people have to contribute to this. Just having reports from one or two people isn't going to carry much weight.

None of this is to say there isn't a problem. All of this is to say that requesting a major change requires major proof. Without that proof, look at it this way: Steve can keep things they way they are with few complaints, or change something and risk lots of complaints. It isn't a hard choice. The burden of proof always rests on the side wanting the change.

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Monday, August 12, 2019 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Considering speed 40, could then say x-phasers do a whole point of damage instead of .5......

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 - 09:47 am: Edit

Prove we need to do something (through multiple play tests with live opponents) before offering suggestions on what to do.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 - 10:15 am: Edit

The -1 on die rolls and the heavier warhead strength on plasma ships might make bolting more attractive as well as the capability of a four torpedo x-ship to launch or bolt 4 F torps every turn. A range 5 salve of four 10 point bolts on 1-5 isnt bad, and S+ bolts at 20 hit on 1-3 and dp 7 or more damage each. Also not bad.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 - 10:41 am: Edit

And firing that S bolt at range 10 does almost the same damage as a fully overloaded photon. Nothing to sneeze at there.

Do remember, however, that the -1 to hit modifier only applies to non-X ships. So, with X-on-X violence, there is no -1 to hit modifier.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - 12:20 pm: Edit

A note for future consideration:


Over in Star Fleet Battles, a non-X scout may not use offensive EW jamming against an X-ship, according to (XD6.3145). Or rather, it can try to, but the effect will be ignored.

In Federation Commander terms, would (or should) that equate to a non-X scout in this game system - such as the Andromedan Eel shown in Communiqué #83 - not being able to use offensive jamming (5S4c) against an enemy X-ship? Or should a non-X scout in FC be permitted to use this function against an X-ship as it would against a non-X ship?


I thought of this after requesting a playtest GSX Ship Card over in this thread; say, if a would-be playtester wanted to compare RTN-hunting with that proposed Ship Card, as opposed to using the non-X GSC which is currently available elsewhere. [According to (5S7b), each Ship Card for a certain type of Andromedan base should have a certain number of sensor boxes added.]

That said, this may not be something to address right now, though I wondered if it might be worth considering once we get closer to the formal publication of X-Ships Attack itself.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Technically, this is already the case, to an extent.

X-Ships get a (4A4) modifier in their direction at all times against non-X ships. A scout's modifier can only be one in any case. So, the "free" modifier will immediately negate the scout's modifier.

Regardless, is it really necessary for all of these fiddly rules? Maybe it is, but every rule you put in for X-ships is just one more complication. Is that complication going to *really* make the game better? Scouts are already massively simplified. Do we really need this?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - 03:50 pm: Edit

As the guy who wrote the SFB rules and the FC rules I think the FC rules are fine as is, do what needs doing, and we do not need to add anything, least of all for EW. As Mike noted, I got that covered when I wrote the rules in the first place. If you'll excuse me, my fitbit just buzzed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 14, 2020 - 01:33 am: Edit

We plan to do X-SHIPS ATTACK in the near term, September/October maybe, as a PDF pack. It will have 63 ships including the 16 already published (but you will only get charged for the other 47, since you already got the 16 free). Rules are being updated. The cards take about 1/5 of a work day so this will take 10-25 work days to do, but there is CL54 to consider and I am sure it will come first, but the LYRAN PDF pack will probably get done before CL54 I think.

No speed 40, no sabot, no EW. I am of two minds on Andros (there are two spots reserved but since they are not real they may wait for some other time, we won't decide before late August.

By John Williams (Johndw) on Tuesday, July 14, 2020 - 07:30 am: Edit

What do you believe will be the delay between releasing "X-Ships Attack", and updating the "Federation Command Reference Rulebook" with any new rules that may have been released/included with "X-Ships Attack" ?

Also, I see there are quite a few "(Faction) Ship Card Pack #n" available to get on DriveThruRPG, I know I may be thinking about this a little backwards, and that normally you might suggest getting "FC: Academy" to start and expanding out from there?

But has there been any thought on creating a ship pack that would be a companion to the "FC Reference Rulebook" for new players? Like maybe a free PDF collection of all the ship cards that have been released for free via other things all collected together, or just a collection of a variety of ships from different factions? Or does something liek that already exist? Thanks!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 14, 2020 - 09:42 am: Edit

QUESTION
What do you believe will be the delay between releasing "X-Ships Attack", and updating the "Federation Command Reference Rulebook" with any new rules that may have been released/included with "X-Ships Attack" ?
ANSWER
I haven’t thought about it. Could be done easily enough by the end of the year. The issue is what non-FC stuff I have to do.

QUESTION
Also, I see there are quite a few "(Faction) Ship Card Pack #n" available to get on DriveThruRPG, I know I may be thinking about this a little backwards, and that normally you might suggest getting "FC: Academy" to start and expanding out from there?
ANSWER
Not a question for this topic.

QUESTION
But has there been any thought on creating a ship pack that would be a companion to the "FC Reference Rulebook" for new players? Like maybe a free PDF collection of all the ship cards that have been released for free via other things all collected together, or just a collection of a variety of ships from different factions? Or does something liek that already exist?
ANSWER
Not a question for this topic.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 14, 2020 - 05:48 pm: Edit

CONTENTS FOR X-SHIPS ATTACK PDF PRODUCT
This will be the next FC product and will be done this summer, before or after CL54.
It would take about two weeks of SVC work schedule.
===========
GENERIC X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
FTX R1.205 Free Trader-X
-
UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CX R2.201 CX Advanced Cruiser
DDX R2.202 DDX Advanced Destroyer
FFX R2.203 FFX Advanced Frigate
DWX R2.209 DWX Advanced Technology War Destroyer (Already done)
-
KLINGON EMPIRE X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
DX R3.201 DX Advanced Cruiser
FX R3.202 FX Advanced Frigate (F5X, Already done)
D5X R3.205 D5X Advanced Light Cruiser
FWX R3.212 F5WX Advanced Technology War Destroyer
-
ROMULAN STAR EMPIRE X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
NHX R4.216 NovaHawk-X Command Cruiser
SPX R4.202 SparrowHawk-AX Advanced Light Cruiser
SKX R4.203 SkyHawk-AX Advanced Destroyer (Already done)
K7X R4.206 K7X Advanced Cruiser
KEX R4.209 King Eagle-X Advanced Command Cruiser
BHX R4.210 BHX Advanced Technology Battle Hawk-X Destroyer
-
KZINTI HEGEMONY X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CCX R5.202 CCX Advanced Command Cruiser
CMX R5.203 CMX Advanced Light Cruiser
DWX R5.211 DWX Advanced Technology War Destroyer
FKX R5.205 FKX Advanced Frigate (Already done)
-
CONFEDERATION OF THE GORN X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CCX R6.201 CCX Advanced Commander Cruiser
HDX R6.203 X-Light Cruiser
BDX R6.204 BDX Advanced Battle Destroyer (Already done)
DDX R6.A12 Advanced Destroyer
-
THOLIAN HOLDFAST
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CCX R7.201 Advanced Command Cruiser
DDX R7.203 Advanced Destroyer (Already done)
NCX R7.205 Neo-Tholian Advanced Heavy Cruiser
NLX R7.213 Neo-Tholian NLX Advanced Technology Light Cruiser
-
ORION MERCHANTS AND TRADE UNION X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CX R8.201 Advanced Heavy Cruiser
BRX R8.206 Advanced Technology Battle Raider
DWX R8.208 DWX Advanced Technology War Destroyer (Already done)
LX R8.205 Advanced Light Raider
-
HYDRAN STAR KINGDOM X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
LBX R9.201 Advanced Lord Bishop-X Command Cruiser
MHX R9.212 Mohawk-X Advanced Technology New Heavy Cruiser
LNX R9.204 Advanced Lancer Destroyer (Already done)
KNX R9.205 Advanced Knight Destroyer (Already done)
TRX R9.216 Tartar-X Advanced Technology Medium Cruiser
MNX R9.213 Mongol-X Advanced Technology Medium Cruiser
-
ANDROMEDAN INVADERS X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
INX RC10.23 X-Intruder
COX RC10.29 X-Cobra
CONTROVERSIAL, MIGHT BE REPLACED.
-
LYRAN STAR EMPIRE X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CCX R11.201 CCX Advanced Command Cruiser (Already done)
CWX R11.202 Advanced Light Cruiser
DWX R11.203 Advanced Destroyer (Already done)
DDX R11.
-
WYN STAR CLUSTER X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
ACX R12.201 Advanced Auxiliary Cruiser
CAX R12.29 Carcharodon Improved Heavy Cruiser
CWX R12.206 Orca-X Advanced Technology War Cruiser
DDX R12.28 Mako-X Improved Destroyer (Already done)
-
INTERSTELLAR CONCORDIUM X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CCX R13.201 Flagship X-Cruiser
CLX R13.202 Light X-Cruiser
CSX R13.203 Strike X-Cruiser
DDX R13.204 X-Destroyer (Already done)
-
LYRAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CCX R14.201 CCX Advanced Command Cruiser
DWX R14.202 Advanced Destroyer (Already done)
CWX R14.204 CWX Advanced Technology War Cruiser
MPX R14.205 MPX Advanced Technology Military Police Corvette
-
SELTORIAN TRIBUNAL X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CAX R15.39 CAX Advanced Technology Heavy Cruiser
DDX R15.40 DDX Advanced Technology Destroyer (Already done)
FFX R15.A11 FFX Advanced Technology Frigate
CLX R15.A12 CLX Advanced Technology Light Cruiser
-
VUDAR ENCLAVE X-SHIPS
SHIP RULE# TITLE ON SSD
CWX R17.35 X-Light Cruiser
DWX R17.36 X-Destroyer (Already done)
CCX R17.39 CCX Advanced Technology Command Cruiser
FFX R17.A13 Advanced Frigate
-
Total 63 ships (This is the maximum for the 1" countersheet)

16 are already done in newsletters, play value extras, and captain's Log 53 and would not be considered in the pricing of the product.

The other 57 would be an unusually "rich" product as the typical attack product has 40 one-inch counters representing 16 ships in the product and three boosters of 8 ships. I don't proposed to do boosters but to just put all 63 ships into one PDF product. If we ever do a hard copy product we will figure out how to divide the ships between the core product and around eight boosters. Obviously if somebody really really really wants a ship not on the list it could become a Play Value Extra.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Would it be an option to present a file with the rules and "low toner" versions of the X-Ship Cards as a print-on-demand product on the ADB storefront, akin to Briefing #2; or is it better to keep any sort of print version in reserve until, or unless, a decision is made as to whether or not a run of laminated colour X-Ship Cards might one day be done?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I will ask Leanna about the sales of that product.