Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A question about new EM rule
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junior wrote:
Regarding Fusions and EM...

Quote:
Fusions aren't that badly effected, expected damage drops by something like, what, ~11% at range 0, or ~16% at range 1. In percentage terms that is approximately the same drop in effectiveness for hellbores at the same range. Plus you are still guaranteed damage with fusion. And if you are being shot by fusions you are probably being shot by Ph-G as well, which aren't to badly effected either.


I finally ran the numbers for Fusion Beams and EM. Format is "normal damage" from six shots (non-overloaded, since overloads are an across the board damage increase and will produce roughly the same proportions) that roll 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, followed by "EM damage" with six shots and the same die roll spread.


Range 0: 59 - 41
Range 1: 38 - 24
Range 2: 23 - 12


Am I missing something, at range 0 on a roll of 1,2,3,4,5,6 I get:

59 - 51, a loss of about 13%.

[edidt] NVM, just found 4A4 in the 'briefing 1' sticky. That makes the difference. There's a definate downside to rule changes not being in the main rule book Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
junior
Captain


Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, the "slide one column to the right" rule makes a big difference... I played a game against EM addicted Orions once. I'll just say that the Stingers didn't do much good...

I didn't run the numbers for Gatling Phasers, but iirc they don't do too badly at Range 0 even against EM. Anything beyond that, though, and you start losing damage real quick.

I thought the slide rule was listed in Battleships Attack, though? Or was it Line of Battle?

Though that Battleships rule may have just been the guidelines on what to do with multiple die roll modifiers. I need to go over that stuff again to refresh my memory.

In the meantime, keep waiting for the coming of the FedCom Holy Grail - the Revision 5 rulebook!

Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junior wrote:

I thought the slide rule was listed in Battleships Attack, though? Or was it Line of Battle?



Typical, battle ship attack is the only 'attack' pack I haven't got yet . Though I'm hoping it will arrive tomorrow with my first pack of minis as well (border box 1) if the supposed delivery time is accurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
junior
Captain


Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's in Line of Battle, and makes up the only rules related content in the pack (since the rest of it is composed of scenarios and ship cards). It may also have been included in Briefing #1, though, just as a general "every change up until now" update.


And speaking of rules changes...

For SVC and mjwest - will the Communique rules changes be added to the Briefing #1 sticky in this forum?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3496
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junior wrote:
For SVC and mjwest - will the Communique rules changes be added to the Briefing #1 sticky in this forum?


That is a good question.

I will work something up and see what Steve thinks of it. Then I can get it put up.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1563
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess in an extreme case the new EM rule change could really be devastating.

Suppose a Fed ship has used all its energy for the Turn and is closing on, say, a Klingon D7. The Klingon gets to a range where he figures he stands a decent chance against the Fed's overloaded photons and declares EM. The Fed player decides to go ahead and launch all of them. The photons prove to be ineffective, but the Fed ship still has a few hexes to go to fulfill its turn mode obligation. The Klingon declines to fire. Next Impulse, the Klingon declares emergency deceleration and the Fed moves ahead (e.g. closer). Now the Klink fires with great effect. You may ask, "Why didn't the Fed player simply declare emer. decel., also?" I don't know. He just didn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3496
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShockRocket wrote:
Could someone please point out the tactic that "broke" EM? A link, a quote, anything. This is not a difficult request.

Fair enough question.

There were two things that caused me to request the change:

The first was the tactic of using EM as emergency cover when someone screws up. That resulted in, what I believed, was an unintended (valid, but unintended) use of EM. I also viewed it as harmful to the DF-only (counting the Federation as one of those) empires. It was also a use that is totally impossible in its originating (i.e. SFB) form.

The second was Paul's tactic of using cloak and EM to allow the launch of plasma without ever providing a "clear" shot at the plasma ship, regardless of the range. That was a particularly egregious form of the above issue.

Again, I did not believe that was the way it was intended for EM to be used. I believed that it was a "cheap" use that unduly harmed the DF-only empires (again, counting the Federation as one of those). That was the reason I requested the change and made the proposal I did.

Now, I want to explicitly and very pointedly state that I requested the change. I did not implement it, as I don't have the authority. Only Steve Cole may do that, and he chose to do so. For his reasoning, I will quote him from the legacy boards:
Steve Cole wrote:
The issue had come up before, and had been looked at before. The answer every time was "yeah, we blew that in the original book, it should be changed, but if nobody is abusing it, don't upset people by changing it" (which means "I didn't want to get yelled at and I'm a coward"). When it finally started being abused, I had to accept the blame for my original error and fix it. It's done, adjust to it and move along.

_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ShockRocket
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
The first was the tactic of using EM as emergency cover when someone screws up. That resulted in, what I believed, was an unintended (valid, but unintended) use of EM.
Who, at any point, has suggested that this was a bad thing that makes the game worse? Doesn't the idea of EM being an "oh crap" action seem to be in keeping with the source material? "Captain, they're charging torpedoes!" "Helm, Evasive Manvuers NOW! Full power to the engines!"

Quote:
It was also a use that is totally impossible in its originating (i.e. SFB) form.
The sign at the top of the board says "Federation Commander". There are many things in Federation Commander that work differently from SFB.

Quote:
The second was Paul's tactic of using cloak and EM to allow the launch of plasma without ever providing a "clear" shot at the plasma ship, regardless of the range. That was a particularly egregious form of the above issue.
And it is a problem with the Cloak rules, not the EM rules. If "cloak/uncloak" happened after "launch seeking weapons" then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Quote:
Now, I want to explicitly and very pointedly state that I requested the change.
And no doubt there was a six-page thread where we hashed this all out beforehand, and the consensus opinion was that this was the best of all possible options to fix the purported problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pneumonic81
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 275
Location: Austin TX

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FedCom isnt SFB. However I would like to point out that Erratic manuvers were originally designed in and for SFB. The spirit of which was not an "oh crap" tactic or an all powerful plasma cover for romulans. Perhaps the rule itself should never have been ported over, and instead left behind with T-Bombs and Positron Flywheels.

But since it was included, then it seems logical to me that the designers do thier best to keep with the spirit of the system. The first FedCom incarnation was NOT in the spirit of the original. The changes made it more like its intended design.

While FedCom is not SFB, it is a very very close relation, and when porting rules from one game to another, things have to be decided on. Sometimes the choices made simply do not have an impact until years down the road. So it seems logical to me that if a system gives a race like the Romulans the advantage of never being out of defensive modifiers, and yet still being able to fire, then that rule needs to be examined and compared to the original rule intention.

Mike did this, examined the situation. Discussed it with Steve, who saw that it was not as he originally intended, and made the adjustment. I enjoyed the rule as it was, but it simply makes more sense now that it has been changed.

Dont worry though, new tactics will arise that will screw the Federation Smile
_________________
http://www.rickknox3d.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Drake
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seams to me that the baby got thrown out with the bath water on this one. If the problem is with plasma, why not make it so you can't declare EM the impulse after launching a plasma, as for the reason why you can't it's because you just can't or insert your own Handwavium here reason. As for the panic EM thing I think that is just silly. Sorry, but any one that is playing me that off balance is still going to die they just spent more energy to get there!

I think that the rule change is a bad one, and think that it's change was handled badly also. Sorry guys, I love this game and think you usally do a great job, but you dropped the ball on this one.


Sir Drake
_________________
Colour Sergeant Bourne: It's a miracle.
Lieutenant John Chard: If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind.
From the Movie ZULU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
junior
Captain


Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Drake wrote:
Seams to me that the baby got thrown out with the bath water on this one. If the problem is with plasma,


The problem wasn't just with plasma, though. The problem was with the original implementation of the rule. As the quote from SVC says, there was a lot of dissatisfaction by SVC with the way that the rule originally worked. But it wasn't until a completely broken tactic appeared that SVC decided to go ahead and change the rule.

In short, as I mentioned earlier, the plasma tactic wasn't the "problem" per se. Rather, it appears to have been the straw that finally broke the back of the EM problem and caused SVC to decide that it was finally time to go ahead and take action on this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Drake
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair enough Juinor,

My problem is that the rule worked just fine for me before. and it still works for me other than the plasma tactic. the new rule on the other hand dosn't work well IMO, but I have said my peace and am willing to agree to disagree on this.


Sir Drake
_________________
Colour Sergeant Bourne: It's a miracle.
Lieutenant John Chard: If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind.
From the Movie ZULU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
junior
Captain


Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Drake wrote:
My problem is that the rule worked just fine for me before. and it still works for me other than the plasma tactic. the new rule on the other hand dosn't work well IMO, but I have said my peace and am willing to agree to disagree on this.


And I've noted earlier that I wasn't happy with the rule, and provided some numbers to demonstrate why I was unhappy with it. A 50% loss in damage at range 2 for a race that effectively lives or dies based on whether it can get a firing opportunity at range 2 is, in a word, brutal. My complaints about this particular use of EM date back to a battle report (and request for tactical advice - the only real answer I got was basically "fly the Dragoon like a phaser boat") that I posted on this board quite a while back following a fight between a Dragoon and two Orion ships.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junior wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's in Line of Battle,..


Battle ship attack arrived today, yippe, and the rule is in that.

Also got border box 1 as well, so off to look at doing up minis, been a while since I did any minis (and that was warhammer) - have to see how the paints etc are holding up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShockRocket
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junior wrote:
And I've noted earlier that I wasn't happy with the rule, and provided some numbers to demonstrate why I was unhappy with it. A 50% loss in damage at range 2 for a race that effectively lives or dies based on whether it can get a firing opportunity at range 2 is, in a word, brutal.
But again, the game has always been like this. Hydran Fusion ships have always needed to get close. I don't understand why you're justifying a fundamental change to the game system by citing a non-optimal situation for a single race. A Hydran complaining about Fusion Beams at Range 2 is like a Fed complaining about Photons at Range 15--yes, of course they're bad, you're at a bad range! What do you expect?

If your Hydran tactics are entirely dependent on getting a Fusion Beam shot at Range 2, then I'd suggest that you need to re-think your Hydran tactics. Whingeing about EM isn't going to fix the fact that you're outside the optimal range of Fusions (i.e. range zero, or overloads at range 1.)

Heck, let's look at it this way--with the new rule, he'll announce EM somewhere in range four to six. So I'll be firing Fusions in the 3-8 bracket, and I'll see more damage reduction than I'd get from him being on EM at range 1 or 2! In the Fed example, the Fed was worse off with the new EM rule than he was before!

I don't understand why people are saying that this new EM rule is "better", when it's more restrictive, more difficult to implement, requires more advance planning, and demonstrably disadvantages the races it was supposed to assist!

And no, I'm not going to "agree to disagree", because this is a rule change. It's not an optional thing like fighters--this is how we all have to play the game now. And ADB's attitude is "our game, our rules, gtfo if you don't like it", which makes me wonder why they've even got this board.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
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