 |
Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rulesjd
Lieutenant JG
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 48
Location: seattle
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Steve: I'm not really sure what he means either. I play a lot of boardgames and find a wide gamut of both rules quality and organizational style. FC is FAR from the worst of what is out there today.
For me, the most challenging part of FC currently is the modularity of rules in the different products. The only way to truly defeat this problem would be to release new updated master rules books frequently to incorporate the new products/errata/FAQ and with new index and refernce notes.
Of course, no one is going to buy new rules books on a regular basis unless you offer them for free or as part of a major new expansion ala ISC/Andro.
In any case, I don't really think there is a "new" rules paradigm. In fact, Combat Commander:Europe from GMT has a similar letter oriented sectional rules system that works quite well. Maybe sidebars with illustration and situational discussion could help but, I don't find FC to be that complicated.
_________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full spe........[squarrk]" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve Cole wrote: | | Please explain this different organizational system of current generation games. |
Frankly, somewhat less well organized  .
When I go to my shelf and pull down a game there are almost none of them (short of really old ones like Republic of Rome, Titan, etc) that use any sort of numbered compartmentalized reference system. Even then the remake of Titan has cut back on it's use of this organization system (i.e its much closer FC than SFB now in rule style). They instead describe the game as played, walking through a turn and explaining each thing that happens and each thing you can do as you can do it.
They describe the start of a turn, each phase in order of them happening, and each thing that happens during that phase. In describing each part they describe all the rules you need for that part. For example, when describing the part of the turn where you can shoot you see the rules for shooting and all the rules for all the guns.
At the very end of the rules they generally have sort of a "random etc" section with a few interactions and special circumstances not specifically covered in the prior sections. These can range across anything really and vary from game to game.
This rules style seems to emulate how a player teaches another player rather than a logical and ordered listing of rules, compartmentalized and self referencing. That's simply not how many (I would go so far as to say almost all) people learn. They instead learn and internalize by being walked through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rulesjd wrote: | | Steve: I'm not really sure what he means either. I play a lot of boardgames and find a wide gamut of both rules quality and organizational style. FC is FAR from the worst of what is out there today. |
I am absolutely not saying it's bad. I'm saying it's an old style you don't see in most popular games today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kang
Fleet Captain
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1976
Location: Devon, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
But the game is so rich and varied, with so much to explore, that there's no end of different orders in which you could teach the stuff. Far better, then, to lay it all out logically where you can find it when you're playing.
In any case, FC is not hard to learn, even solo and from scratch.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rulesjd wrote: | | Steve: I'm not really sure what he means either. I play a lot of boardgames and find a wide gamut of both rules quality and organizational style. FC is FAR from the worst of what is out there today. |
As I've said a few times in other posts (which came up about specific points), I couldn't disagree more. Whilst the organization is not great, I can put up with that to an extent. Out of the hundreds of wargames I own and have played the rules quality is amongst the worst I've seen. Maybe I haven't played the other games with poor quality like other people seem to have done.
For those who wrote the rules I can only imagine they have fallen into the standard authors trap of reading the rules knowing what they meant (an easy thing to do) rather than what they actually say (or don't say). I also expect a lot of players here are ex-sfb players and are also applying the same logic to an extent, they read the rule and apply their sfb knowledge of how said rules worked.
For new players picking up the game on the basis it is of simple to moderate complexity suitable for 10 year olds though, and whose parents may not have played SFB...
The reason I think Rev5 in particular is so much worse than earlier versions is beacuse in a lot of places clarifiactions/additions have been added, not by re-wording the rules to make it clearer, but simply tacking on bits to the existing rules. In some areas that has left even more confusing rules, or rules that conflict with other areas.
As an example off the top of my head. How are you suppossed to know that 4K1d is in fact superseceded by 5L1. 5L1 supersedes all previously published info, not the same publication. There is nothing contradictory saying here is list of what option mounts can hold what weapons, and here is a rule saying that only 1 in 3 ships can have a hellbore. The 2 rules are perfectly compatible. The statement that 5L1 replaces is all previsously published info is in itself an utterly bizarre thing to say. Of course it does, this is the lastest rule book, by defintion it supersecedes all previous published rules. Is that statrement implying that rules in other areas of the book don't replace previous publications!
I consider the following quotes by SVC to be a prime example of authors (or ex SFB players) thinking they know what the rules actually say, when they don't. It was from a thread about range 0 fire arcs (thats fire arcs not shields arcs)
| Quote: | | Nothing changes. The rules are explicit and clear and nothing is missing. |
| Quote: | | Nothing in the rulebook say, hints, implies, or supports a conclusion that all weapons are 360° at range zero. Firing arcs work like the rulebook says the work, and those same rules have been used in SFB for 30 years .... |
I went through the rule book and found 2 explicit aspects to range 0 firing. a) Range 0 is a range you can shoot at (numerous references to range 0), and b) The fire arcs do not include range 0 (diagrams in 3B).
In other words it appears to be a not unreasonable assumption that at range 0 you can fire everything unrestricted by arc, given rules that are explicitly in the rule book.
The rules as written at the moment are pretty unclear as to fire arcs, unless you are the authors who knew what you were getting at. Sure, those of us who have played games like SFB may be able to work it out, but FedCom doesn't say it can't be played without knowledge of SFB.
NB - I am not try to dredge up a discussion on either of those 2 points specificaly (or at least in this thread at any rate). But specific examples were asked for, they are just a couple.
That doesn't alter the fact that I love the game. Apart from minis (which I'm not really into) I have bought every FC product so far, and will be buying W&P and the boosters the moment I can get my mits on it, but I won't be buying then next rule book until I've borrowed one to have a good look through and check it is a good clear and precise rule book, and not just the old version with additional paragraphs tacked on without thought as to how they interact with what was left in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kang
Fleet Captain
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1976
Location: Devon, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storeylf wrote: | | For those who wrote the rules I can only imagine they have fallen into the standard authors trap of reading the rules knowing what they meant (an easy thing to do) rather than what they actually say (or don't say). |
I have had that impression occasionally. Not always, but occasionally.
| storeylf wrote: | | I also expect a lot of players here are ex-sfb players and are also applying the same logic to an extent, they read the rule and apply their sfb knowledge of how said rules worked. |
Count me in on this; I do it all the time It helps me to do this - not that it should have to, but it does.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know I definitely would have had a far harder time getting into and understanding FC if I didn't already know SFB. I'm sure I would have learned it just fine but it would be a large barrier to many current generation gamers.
I do agree with storeylf that the errata and clarifications should have reworked the rules, not been * sections after each rule. For every game on my shelf I have printed out or taken handwritten notes on which rules have been errata'ed or clarified. If the rule is difficult to understand or has ambiguities in relation to other rules they just completely rewrite it.
The very few that actually have a whole new rules book come out generally rewrite vast sections to be more clear/tweak game balance/etc. Anything that could be called a FAQ gets rewritten from scratch and explained in a different way to hopefully not elicit as many questions. That rule book then just supersedes all prior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimDauphinais
Commander
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 769
Location: Chesterfield, MO
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First, let me note that I have played a large number of wargames from a good number of publishers. I have also been personally involved with the cleanup and the development of one game system and have been the compiler and maintainer of Q&A for two others. Finally, I have never played SFB and I learned to play FC on my own with no difficulty whatsoever. While some questions came up, they were no more than what I would normally expect when learning a new game system and in most cases those questions were resolved by simply rereading the rule and its associated examples. I continue to stand by my view that the 5th edition FC rules are above average in quality.
This all said, I agree that more needs to be done to make sure that when a new rule or clarification is added the remainder of the rules are carefully checked to ensure the rules as a whole are compatible and consistent. As an example, clarifications were added in the 5th edition rules related to speed effects when tractoring and Orion Pirate speed doubling. Those clarifications unfortunately contradict earlier statements in the very same rules sections to which the clarifications were added. Those earlier statements needed to be rewritten so that they do not leave a reader confused.
Let me also say that for now this can be addressed via the CRUL (obviously after Origins). A new edition of the rules can wait the three years or so that Steve previously suggested.
_________________
Jim Dauphinais, Chesterfield, MO
St. Louis Area Fed Comm Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/STL_Federation_Commander/
Last edited by JimDauphinais on Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dal Downing
Commander
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 652
Location: Western Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DirkSJ wrote: | | I do agree with storeylf that the errata and clarifications should have reworked the rules, not been * sections after each rule. For every game on my shelf I have printed out or taken handwritten notes on which rules have been errata'ed or clarified. If the rule is difficult to understand or has ambiguities in relation to other rules they just completely rewrite it. |
Ok now we are finally getting tio the problem per se you are having. As I understand it when the Rev 5 rules were ASKED for by us the player we wanted a Rule Book that included all the rules and noted the updates. SVC said there is not a Master Rulebook as such. There is a Rulebook in the office with all the clarifications noted and examples noted and WE said could you please publish this product because we would buy it as it is. The Refrence Rule Book is not a New Edition like AD&D from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition but what a Publishing of 2nd Edition as it would look if you went through it and added all the different Source Books and did line item corrections or clarifacation. The Problem it seems people are having is they are trying to treat the Refrenced Rulebook as a New Edition, which it is not, instead of looking at as Edition 1 revsion index 5.
That said are there going to be Mistakes yes. Are most of us that try to playtest it former SFBers yes. Now after Orgins MJW said he would sit down and update the CRUL and hopefully we can get back to havibng that Document update right after the Communiques are put out and that will help releave a lot of the confussons we are seeing.
_________________
-Dal
"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimDauphinais
Commander
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 769
Location: Chesterfield, MO
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good point, but do consider a decision was also made to adopt the reference rulebook text into the rulebooks for Klingon Border and Romulan Border. That is really where the problem lies as new players, who are using these updated rulebooks (rather the the reference rulebook), can run into issues that may appear to them as contradictions in the rules as written. This said, I think that all this amounts to is that there is a lesson that could be learned from the experience.
_________________
Jim Dauphinais, Chesterfield, MO
St. Louis Area Fed Comm Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/STL_Federation_Commander/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Cole
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3833
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is simply no valid chain of logic that can create the theory that weapons are 360 at range zero. Any claim there is belies the written text. It's nonsense, and somebody is having to really bend things to pretend he might possibly confuse the issue.
Having read a lot of rulebooks by a lot of game companies going back to about 1967, I can truthfully say mine are better than 95% of what's out there. Room for improvement, certainly. Room for the kind of bombthrowing I've seen here, not a chance.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dal Downing wrote: | | Ok now we are finally getting tio the problem per se you are having. As I understand it when the Rev 5 rules were ASKED for by us the player we wanted a Rule Book that included all the rules and noted the updates. SVC said there is not a Master Rulebook as such. There is a Rulebook in the office with all the clarifications noted and examples noted and WE said could you please publish this product because we would buy it as it is. The Refrence Rule Book is not a New Edition like AD&D from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition but what a Publishing of 2nd Edition as it would look if you went through it and added all the different Source Books and did line item corrections or clarifacation. The Problem it seems people are having is they are trying to treat the Refrenced Rulebook as a New Edition, which it is not, instead of looking at as Edition 1 revsion index 5. |
Who is WE?
The problem with producing stuff that some people ask for is that you satisfy those people but leave others who are not in on that conversation confused or annoyed that they didn't get what they thought they were buying.
I am treating it as the rule book, because it is. I am not treating as a new edition or new version, I am just reading it as the rule book, just as any new players buying the game would have no chioce to read it as the rule book.
I have no idea what percentage of the FC players base is involved heavily in the forums, but I see a fairly small number of regular posters, I would think even for a niche game like FC that represents a small proportion of the player base. I would also imagine they are the real 'fanatical' players. Certainly out of the those who I play with I am the only 1 who posts regularly, 1 posts very very rarely and as far as I'm aware another couple never have anything to do with the forums. Even as the regular forum visitor I only visit 3 'headings' with any consistency and ignore the others. What i'm getting round to saying is that doing stuff because forum users requested it is not necessarily good for the player base as a whole. Your post reminded in particular of the following (from wikipedia) on Star fleet battles:
| Quote: | | For a long time, the vast majority of the mail received was from the top few fanatical SFB players, who constantly campaigned for new rules, rules fixes, and rules changes. This became a source of discontent for most of the rest of the players, who did not appreciate a game that changed every few months, and needed a sheaf of notes along with the voluminous rules. |
As an SFB player back in the day whio gave up on the game it does have a ring of truth to it. From what you are now saying about Rev5, that it was a product of a request from some fraction of the user base, that FC may be suffering the same.
Last edited by storeylf on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve Cole wrote: | | There is simply no valid chain of logic that can create the theory that weapons are 360 at range zero. Any claim there is belies the written text. It's nonsense, and somebody is having to really bend things to pretend he might possibly confuse the issue. |
I'm sorry but other players have previously posted that they thought that was the case. You are ignoring the reality that people have been confused.
I can find only 2 rules in the rule book covering range 0. There is a perfectly valid chain of logic that can take the rules and arrive at the conclusion fire arcs don't count at range 0. There are other conclusions as well, but with the rules as they are at best ambigous. There are no rules that explicity show what you seem to think.
If you honestly think otherwise then I can see why the rule book is as it is. You are indeed applying your knowledge of the game to how the rules should be read, and not actually reading the rules and thinking about how a new player could interpret them.
You do not have to argue that weapons are 360. it is a hex game not some uber realistic simulutation. Indeed I didn't say weapons were 360 at range 0, just that fire arcs do not appear relevant. The why is not important, its the game mechanics that we play by. For whatever reason the rule book shows diagrams for fire arcs that do not include range 0. You can argue what you want as to intent or why the diagrams are why they are, but the fact remains that for a new player it can reasonably appear that fire arcs are not relevant at range 0, in light of no other rule saying otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jean
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 1733
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, guys let's take a minute to review some history.
SVC had put together for staff use ONLY a rulebook that contained the corrections, notes, and rulings from the CRUL and integrated those into the text. These rulebooks were numbered and handed out to staff with the understanding that they were company property. When people saw it in use, they contacted Steve and asked if they could have a copy.
We updated some language, turned some phrases into sentences, tried to do a bit of smoothing out of the text, but this is the reference rulebook that our customers wanted, not a master rulebook. It contains rules, but no scenarios, background, or ship information.
The process of proofreading and editing took a good amount of time, but reasonable for a new product.
Then Marketing stepped in and said that the old rulebooks needed to agree with the Reference Rulebook. It makes sense that someone who has just bought a new product would expect the text to match with what his friend has in the new Reference Rulebook. Steve and I took a couple of weeks where Prime Directive didn't get done and no further work was done on anything new for Federation Commander. During those weeks, we proofread and edited and updated a rulebook a day.
Are they perfect? No. The day that we issue a perfect rulebook will be the day that I look back and see I sprouted some beautiful wings. Are they better than what you had before. Absolutely. I believe that with all my heart.
Now, you've made a point that we need to make sure that Range Zero has a bit more explanation than rule (3C6d) provides. (I always just assumed that if the shield hit was the one described, then only weapons that could hit that shield could be used. And no, I have no preconceptions based upon SFB as I only know about SFB what FC has taught me and the guys at Origins kind of help me do because they know I am pitiful and only play SFB once a year.) Advice like that can be helpful, but it is far more helpful when we are not swamped getting new products ready for release in a week. Browbeating SVC isn't going to help. Contacting Mike West privately and suggesting to him that this might be a good item for the updated CRUL is a good idea.
I strongly suggest that you tone down this conversation and turn it from being something non-helpful into something constructive. Work with Mike West to help him on the next CRUL. Stop criticizing this rulebook for not being what it was never designed to be. That's like criticizing a Kentucky Derby winner for not winning a pacing race.
Gentlemen, you are better than this. You know this is the worst time of year to start something controversial and I expect far more of you.
Thank you for your cooperation and your future suggestions to Mike. I know that when we work together, we'll have a far better product when we release it. Your helpful suggestions, including perhaps suggested wording or examples, will strengthen an already strong product.
Jean
WebMom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve Cole wrote: | | There is simply no valid chain of logic that can create the theory that weapons are 360 at range zero. Any claim there is belies the written text. It's nonsense, and somebody is having to really bend things to pretend he might possibly confuse the issue. |
There are no rules for arcs at range 0. All of the diagrams show outside of range 0. There are only inferences and different people will infer different things. Anything not spelled out will find a rules lawyer to argue it...an unfortunate fact of life  .
Personally range zero arcs always made sense to me but I don't know if that's just because I came from SFB and had them explained to me the first day I ever played. I'm not sure what I would have thought without that background. I probably would have asked on the forum rather than try to infer anything.
| Jean wrote: | Browbeating SVC isn't going to help. Contacting Mike West privately and suggesting to him that this might be a good item for the updated CRUL is a good idea.
I strongly suggest that you tone down this conversation and turn it from being something non-helpful into something constructive. Work with Mike West to help him on the next CRUL. Stop criticizing this rulebook for not being what it was never designed to be. That's like criticizing a Kentucky Derby winner for not winning a pacing race.
Gentlemen, you are better than this. You know this is the worst time of year to start something controversial and I expect far more of you. |
I don't think anyone sees this as an immediate "call to action" so I'm not sure why it being a busy time is relevant. The forum isn't going anywhere. You guys can check in and catch up when you aren't so swamped and decide for yourselves if anything needs to be updated/changed/whatever. The discussion can still happen regardless.
I wasn't actually expecting SVC to comment in the thread much less ask me about the other rulebooks I have experience with. I answered when asked and then stayed a part of the ensuing conversation.
I've been trying to be constructive and made sure to keep a civil tone and say all the things that I like as well as those that I think can use work. I've also tried to make sure to use an "opinion based" tone (I feel...I think...) rather than a fact asserting one. Everything in this thread is opinion, even if not all take that tone. |
|
| 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
