See Communique #146 for the first X-ship preview.

DO NOT ask/speculate about other heavy weapons. There is a time for all things and this is not their time.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 11, 2018 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Thank you for setting up this thread, and thanks to you and Mike West for springing such a welcome surprise!

If I may, I had a few questions about the provisional X-ship rules in (5Z), and how they are implemented in the sample Ship Card.

Firstly, the rules in (5Z2) state that disruptors on smaller X-ships are extended as far as Range 30, while the sample X-Ship Card lists them as being Range 25. Which is correct?

Secondly, does (or should) the playtest X-ships possess the Aegis fire control system as detailed in (3F), or is the incarnation of Aegis in FC relative to SFB such that the concept of "X-Aegis" does not necessarily translate over?

Thirdly, while the playtest X-Ship card has "standard" (6-box) admin shuttles, is the door potentially ajar for the eventual inclusion of advanced admin shuttles (with 8 damage boxes), based on the relevant notes in SFB Module X1R? To clarify, I only ask this strictly in terms of how it affects first-generation X-ships; I would not wish to see advanced admin shuttles become available to non-X ships here in FC.

Fourthly, it's currently noted that X-ships in FC use the same "fast" drones as non-X ships do from 2580 onwards. Is this considered to be a "final" design choice, or is the door being left potentially ajar for an "advanced drone" based on the type-VII drone from SFB Module X1? (In FC terms, this perhaps need not go farther than increasing the drone's warhead and damage points - though even that would need to be gauged carefully in terms of how much of an impact it might have on the tabletop.)

Also, I wanted to note that I like the clever choice made with implementing the rapid-pulse phaser option on the Weapons Used track.

And finally, while having "X" in the name and designation of the Ship Card might be something of a giveaway, might it be worth adding a box saying "first-generation X-ship" above the Turn Mode boxes, akin to similar boxed notes on certain other Ship Cards, such as for Aegis escorts or cloak-equipped hulls?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 11, 2018 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Disruptor range is 25 in FC.

We decided not to worry about Aegis. We might rethink it later.

No advanced shuttles in FC.

Standard type-I fast drone is final decision. No type-7/8/9 drones in FC.

Might add an x-ship bar sometime.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 11, 2018 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Thanks for the above clarifications.


So far as X-batteries go, might it be an option to add the same kind of Battery Power tracks and numbered Battery boxes as seen on Andromedan Ship Cards, in order to help keep track of how much reserve power is used (or lost) at a time?

And also, when being used for shield reinforcement, does each X-battery allow up to three Energy Points' worth of reinforcement against a given volley, or is there the same limit of one point of reinforcement per battery as with non-X batteries?


Oh, and would the rapid pulse mode in FC also work against gunboats (or Andro mobile weapon platforms), as and when those are introduced to the game system?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 11, 2018 - 09:06 pm: Edit

3 points of reinforcements.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 11, 2018 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Nice simple rules, I am very happy.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 11, 2018 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Does the -1 die roll shift for direct fire weapons apply against shuttles or seeking weapons launched by X-ships?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, February 12, 2018 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Please remember that this is a first pass and that things can change, even between now and the second ship published (whenever that happens). These are meant to be a preview of what Steve is thinking about how the X-rules work. Things could be added. Things could even be taken away. Try it out and have fun.

And I was blown away when I realized how old the scenario was. I don't know why I remembered the scenario, but I did. I just didn't realize how far back I was reaching. Fun fact: The scenario isn't mentioned in the Vandal ship entries in the ship list PDFs. Instead, you have to see that that Vandal destroyed the North Carolina and look that up to find the scenario number.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, February 12, 2018 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Richard: Good question.

I originally wrote something with more nuance, but I changed my mind. Anything originating from an X-ship should not be subject to the -1 to target it. That includes seeking weapons, shuttles, and fighters. (Gunboats, when added to the game, would be different, and would be subject to the -1.)

In the future, there may be nuance on the fighters, but for now, I think it best to keep things simple.

It is entirely possible, of course, that Steve could jump in here and rule something else.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, February 12, 2018 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Two more things:

1) The shuttles presented in Federation Commander are already a hybrid of sorts. They only take 6 points of damage, but they get the speed of advanced shuttles. (The removal of the ship affecting phaser is a completely different consideration.) So, since they are already hybrid shuttles, why make further needless differentiation? A shuttle is a shuttle.

2) Steve has had plenty of opportunities to add any kind of drone options into Federation Commander, either in the base game, or even in BoM. He has chosen at every step to not do that. I would have been very surprised if he had wanted to do it here. A drone is a drone.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 12, 2018 - 06:01 pm: Edit

The -1 should probably be used against such things, I conjecture that it originates from the SFB rule which essentially gives X-ships a -1 die roll advantage if they have a favorable EW situation vs the target (which would usually be the case against seeking weapons and admin shuttles, originating from an X-ship or not).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, February 12, 2018 - 06:32 pm: Edit

I thought X-drones had some kind of built-in EW. It's been a while since I have checked.

But, good thought on the shuttles. Maybe they should be subject to the -1 to fire on them.

Or, just maybe, I can talk Steve out of that whole rule so that the point becomes completely irrelevant.

(I mean, seriously, your ship has more power, more phasers, your phasers can fire more often, your batteries are insane, and you will almost assuredly be able to fire every turn. Why do you need a -1 die roll modifier?)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 12, 2018 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Because X-ships can do that in SFB.

The FX has been toned down even so, no advanced tech drones (a type VII drone is a standard one space drone for an FX and does 18 damage and takes six to kill). It also lacks the double size (16 points of energy phaser capacitor) of the SFB version, an advantage that doesn't pass along to FC.

I do not advocate new drones for FC, I am just saying that it is in fact less powerful than the SFB version. :p

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 12:17 am: Edit

Thanks again for the further clarifications.

Two other questions for now:

*According to (4D2b) in the FC Reference Rulebook, non-X disruptors are armed (and/or overloaded) at the instant of fire; I admit to have possibly overlooked a note permitting them to be pre-armed in Energy Allocation also. In the case of X-disruptors, does the note in (5Z2) about holding armed disruptors to the next turn for a reduced cost mean that X-disruptor can indeed be pre-armed during Energy Allocation, in order to permit this pre-arming to be held over a turn break?

*For the purposes of (6F1b), does an X-ship in FC have the same 10-box "minimum shields" per facing as their SFB counterparts, or are they limited to the same 5-point shields as non-X ships in terrain such as nebulae?

-----

Also, to refer to the -1 discussion above, I should note that while there are a number of X-carriers in the likes of Module X1R, only one Alpha Octant empire has a fighter type which would itself count as an "X-unit" - and even they still have the odd X-carrier using non-X fighters.

So even if a given X-ship's drones and admin shuttles would not be subject to the -1 from another X-ship, this would not necessarily apply to most X-carriers' fighters.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 12:43 am: Edit

I vaguely recall somewhere that Stinger-Xs, thought only deployable on advanced technology units are not themselves advanced technology units, just _very_ capable fighters. They don't get movement advantages over normal fighters or a -1 shift for their direct fire weapons when they have a net positive ECCM situation.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 01:10 am: Edit

I interpret the -1 shift as being present to represent the superior targeting systems of X-ships. If that is the case, it makes sense that it would apply across the board. Of course, the Small Target Modifier might nullify this against shuttles, fighters, etc.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 01:48 am: Edit

While I defer to the experts in terms of the status of the Stinger-X in SFB, I should note that my intent was not to try and drag things out regarding that particular unit type before its time is due. Regardless of how - or even if - it ought to be handled one day in FC, my main intention in my last post was to focus on what kind of targeting options an X-ship should have against non-X fighters.

Also, according to (XE1.7) in Module X1R, X-ships in SFB ignore the small target modifier. (There are quite a lot of revisions to the first-generation X-rules - and to a number of BPVs for ships in Module X1 itself - in X1R.)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 02:05 am: Edit

RE: disruptors
You are correct that the 1 point holding cost is meaningless currently. Until clarified further, assume this means an X-ship can arm a disruptor at the end of a turn (where you can put overload energy into a photon) and then hold it the following turn. This can be armed as either a normal load or an overload.

Or maybe Steve decides that holding isn’t necessary after all. Dunno. If holding is kept, that is the most flexible way to make it work.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 09:18 am: Edit

Holding is kept

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 09:27 am: Edit

Holding is meaningful in that you save some power on the next turn if you fire it, letting you use power for other things.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 12:52 pm: Edit

I didn't mean to imply holding wasn't useful. The way I outlined it, holding is *extremely* useful. My point instead was the question: Is making holding work worth adding the additional rules, or is having all those new rules not worth adding it? Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Regardless, Steve just said it was worth it, so, let's go with this:
If a disruptor has not been fired during the turn, it may be charged in the (1E3a) Power Phase. The disruptor may be charged with either 2 points of power (for a normal load) or 4 points of power (for an overload). On the following turn, the disruptor must be held (one point for a normal load or two points for an overload) or the disruptor is discharged and the energy applied in the prior turn is lost.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - 11:48 pm: Edit

For when the provisional rules get re-written for a published product -

(5Z2) WEAPONS
...X-ships with seeking weapons have double control.

That's an SFB-ism. FedCom ships list how many drones they can control on the card, if it is more than the standard 6.

We all know it means 12, but previous ship cards with more than six just have text saying it can control 12.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - 08:40 am: Edit

Good catch!

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 15, 2018 - 11:52 pm: Edit

A couple of additional questions regarding X-shields:

*In (3C7), non-X-ships in FC pay two Energy Points to regenerate a given shield box. Do X-ships in FC pay only one Energy Point per shield box, as their SFB counterparts do under (XD9.21), or is it the same Energy Point cost s for non-X-ships?

*In SFB, (XD3.61) notes that, when using the optional leaky shields rule, that X-shields "leak" at half the normal rate, whatever that may be. Since non-X-ships in FC score a shield burn-through point if at least ten Damage Points are scored according to (3C8), do X-shields in FC only score a burn-through point if at least twenty Damage Points are scored - or is the limit the same as on non-X-ships?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, February 16, 2018 - 10:06 am: Edit

Hopefully, we will not be transferring over *every* X-rule. The idea is to simplify and only carry over the most important, game-affecting changes.

So, if something that exists in SFB X-rules is not explicitly stated in (5Z) rules, then it works unchanged from base Federation Commander rules.

In both cases you bring up, the rules are unchanged. But the above applies to anything else, too. I am not saying don't ask. Please do, because something important could have been missed, or Steve may want that rule, too. But, if you need a quick adjudication, if it isn't listed, it isn't changed.