 |
Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mjwest
Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4095
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| HappyDaze wrote: | | So, just to see if there are more errors, why do many of the Orion ship cards show weapon tracks (usually Photon and Plasma-F) for wing mounts that are indicated to not be capable of holding them? These ship cards (such as the BR) came with the very same product that gives the most recent rulings that make such ships (or the rules) wrong. So, is it the ship cards or the rules that are wrong this time? |
First, this was an error in Orion Attack, not the RRB.
Second, this only applies to two ships: the Battle Raider and the Double Raider.
Third, the reason for the error is that the two ship cards (BR, DBR) were built according to their SFB capabilities. Then, after the ship cards went to print, it was determined that giving those two ships that level of capability was potentially unbalancing. It was too late to change the ship cards, but even so, the weapons they could carry in the wings was reduced from "full" option mounts to "drone" option mounts.
Fourth, this was stated and acknowledged immediately upon the release of Orion Attack.
_________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1887
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bolo_MK_XL wrote: | | Seeing Happy is in the region with Micro$oft, can understand him not liking changes --- |
How do you know he doesn't like changes? where did he say he didn't like change?
The last rule book is of one the worst rule books I've ever seen, I've no idea how someone can think it is above average quality for wargames, I've owned a couple of hundred wargames (and still own many of them) and played many more, and I can't think of many that are of such bad quality in terms of the writing of the rules themselves.
A rule book that came out after the cards and shows something different to the cards (which are correct) is not a change it's a lack of QA.
When a rule in the rule book supercedes another rule in the rule book you don't have a change you have a lack of QA.
If it was something that I could download for free on the net and was being regularly updated then, sure, I'd be ok with the poor initial quality. But it's not, it's something I paid good money for, accordingly I expect a level of quality which was patently lacking.
I don't think I'm the only one of our group who was a bit surprised to see that all that appears to have happened in a lot of areas is that the old rules have had various clarifications/expansions tacked on without actually rationalising the rules in light of the changes. I still shake my head at the orion engine doubling section whenever I go to read it, para 1 is for most intents and puposes redundant in light of para 3 (I think 1 ship may still be following para 1 and 13(?) ships are the exception), and what is that comment at the end, why not just change the word in the rule rather than say that is what you meant anyway!
FC is still me favourite game, I'd love to play it more than I do, and I can't wait for W&P which I'll be buying as soon as I can along with the boosters. But ADB deserves the criticism for that rule book. I will not be rushing to buy revision 6 of the rule book like I did with rev5, I will be waiting to hear whether it is worth the money and stick with printouts or handwritten notes if it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
