Federation Commander

[j2klbs]

Is it official that LDR ships must pay 6pts per Ph-G rather than 3? I saw a communique in which the author was saying this is optional. But then I just got booster pack 17 in which several of the dreadnaughts were purchasing them at 6pts per rather than 3 pts per.

Thanks!
Jason

[Dal Downing]

I beleive you were referring to this Question in Communique #31...

Questions and Answers
Q: Are the BPVs of the LDR ships correct? They seem too good a deal for the gatling phasers.
A: These BPVs are based on the SFB game system. Some believe that the LDR BPVs are too low in SFB, while others do not. The matter remains under review but it it was noted that 75% players who showed up for the Federation Commander National Championships at Origins wanted to use the LDR squadron. If you feel that the cost (3 points per phaser-3 converted into a phaser-G) is too low, then for the time being, charge the
LDR 6 points per gatling phaser for the first two, and eight points for the second pair (on ships with four).

Then in Communique #32 it goes on to say this...


(7M) The BPV of the LDR version of the Lyran CA should be 151 (based on the published costs of other LDR ships, see Communique #31 about an overall adjustment of LDR ship point costs).

MJW probably will come along sometime and say what is offical now but I think reading this that it looks like they were leaning towards bumping the point cost up and your new cards reflect that. But I did not find anything in the CRUL to indicated that is what happened.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"

[j2klbs]

Thanks Dal! Yeah, it seems like the newer cards have the cost at 6. Hopefully we will see a listing of all prices for LDR ships in an upcoming communique.

Thanks again!
Jason

[mjwest]

The only officially changed Point Value is the LDR CA, which is 151. The printed Point Value was just an unfortunate typo.

Also, please realize that while the general cost for converting to a Ph-G is 3 BPV, that is not a hard cost, and some ships (e.g. the two dreadnought variants mentioned) will have a different effective cost.

Totally separate from the above two points is the whole idea of what the conversion cost for the Ph-Gs should be. This is what was mentioned in Communique #31. The value to use for this is still quite open to question, and no new value has been officially chosen.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

[j2klbs]

mjwest -

I humbly point out that you are mistaken that the only "officially changed Point Value is the LDR CA". In Booster pack 17, we have

Lyran Desert Lion Light Dreadnaught
Lyran BPV: 111 LDR BPV (w/ 2 gat's): 123
adjusted cost: 6 pts per Ph-G

Lyran Forest Lion Heavy Dreadnaught
Lyran BPV: 122 LDR BPV (w/ 2 gat's): 134
adjusted cost: 6 pts per Ph-G

So, as you can see, even though it is not in a communique, it is quite official because that is what is being printed on the newer cards. So, to recap, the older ships have the Ph-G's costing +3, but the newer ships have them costing +6.

Note: I believe there is another typo besides the CA as well. The CC (fleet scale) has the following:

Lyran BPV: 82
LDR BPV (w/ 2 Ph-G's): 86

So here, the cost is +2 per which was likely intended to be +3.

So, it seems that the designers when they printed the dreadnaughts increased the price adjustement for the gatlings but have not gone back and officially changed any price for the earlier ships. So as of right now, their is an inconsistency with the ship cards.

[Dal Downing]

J2K, MJW being the Offical FedCom guy whos words, are suppose to be golden except when over ruled by the Games Overworked Designer, gave us the Offical version which is the only one that is changed at this time is the LDR CA.

But also read where he pointed out there is not a hard point value converting Phaser1 to PhaserG cost, and on some it will be more, on some it may be less.

So the Offical answer is all cards are correct except the LDR CA 'Independance?" which was updated in a Comm but is not in the CRUL.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"

[j2klbs]

I understand that MJW's words are "golden", except his post seemed to indicate that he was not aware that there was an "official" increase in the PH-G costs for the later published ships. So, I was bringing this to his attention.

Is it intentional that Ph-G's cost +3 pts for some ships, +2 pts for the CC. and +6 pts for other ships? It would seem very strange to me if these different costs were somehow by design. I suspect these discrepancies are unintentional.

So, I guess I'm looking to clarify what the "official" stance is? Is it...

A) Ph-G costs +3 (in which case the DNL, DNH and CC need an errata)
B) Ph-G costs +6 (in which everything except the DNL and DNH need an errata)
C) Ph-G sometimes cost +2, +3 or +6 depending on the ship (I would personally hate it if this were the "official" stance as this would seem to me to be a poor design).

So, MJW, which of the options A-C is the offiical ruling? Thanks for your feedback and consideration.

Regards,
Jason

[j2klbs]

Hi mjwest,

I just re-read your post in which you said...

"the general cost for converting to a Ph-G is 3 BPV, that is not a hard cost, and some ships (e.g. the two dreadnought variants mentioned) will have a different effective cost"

Personally, I don't think it is a good design to vary the upgrade costs based on size. However, if that was intentional, please allow me to point out that the increased cost has not been done consistently.

For example, the Lyran Lion Dreadnought (DN) [fleet scale] only incurs a +3 cost per and yet is the same size class as the other two dreadnoughts.

Cheers!
Jason

[terryoc]