|
Federation Commander A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dan Ibekwe Commander
Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 453 Location: Manchester UK
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:37 pm Post subject: Fighter rules in Comm 128 |
|
|
These look interesting, and I like the new drone rules. The idea of counter reduction is good, but I do have one concern.
Flights of 4-6 fighters seem to be penalised since only three fighters can use direct-fire weapons (Phasers, Photons, Disruptors etc) against the same target in any one impulse, due to 4A3.
Currently, a carrier can arbitrarily split her fighters into groups of three or fewer per hex so that they can all fire.
Would it be possible to change 4A3 so that upto six fighters can fire out of the same hex at one target, so long as they are all part of one flight? _________________ We are Hydrans! NO ONE LIKES US! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steve Cole Site Admin
Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3832
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
We can look at anything but I don't intend to start issuing changes to rules that haven't been tested. Go test them and report back what actually happens, not what a non-playing read-through leads you to suspect might happen. Seriously, a couple of phaser-3s more or less aren't going to have much impact, and 4A3 has been part of the game without a problem for ten years. _________________ The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sgt_G Commander
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 529 Location: Offutt AFB, Nebraska
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan, read rule 5Q1g2. A flight of fighters in considered a single unit, so I take that to mean that a six-fighter flight counts as one of the three units for rule 4A3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rule 5Q1g "Fighters operate in flights of one-to-six fighters. The maximum size of a flight is six fighters." === Clunky wording. Would it not have sounded better to say "Fighters operate in flights of up to six fighters."
Rule 5Q2b "A fighter can only fire one heavy weapon on a given turn. Each weapon can fire only once per turn." === Does anyone else find this redundant?
Rule 5Q1g3 "Any crippled fighter may no longer fire its weapons other than a phaser (5Q1e), and any drones in flight are removed..." === Should not the rule specify that the drones launched by that specific fighter are removed?? If four fighters launch drones and subsequently one of those fighters is crippled (or destroyed), don't the other three drones remains on the map??
Yes, I can see some munchkinism that could happen: four of the six launched, you cripple on of the six fighters, so I say it was one that had not yet (or previously) launched drones, allowing all four drones to remain. Still, that's "more fair" than to remove ALL drones because ONE fighter out of six was crippled, in my opinion. _________________ Garth L. Getgen
Master Sgt, US Air Force, Retired -- 1981-2007 -- 1W091A |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mjwest Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
One the issue of the wording, the first one was probably because it was modified in review, and the "flow" just needs adjusting as we go along. In the case of the second one, that is from the original rule. When stripping Stinger specific stuff from the base rules (5Q1 and 5Q2) I worked very hard to keep as much of the original rule as possible.
On the issue of (4A3), each fighter fires their weapons individually. So, the complaint is valid; a flight of six fighters could only have three of them fire at a single target on a single impulse. That only applies to the direct fire weapons, not any seeking weapons.
If that rule does need changing, I doubt the solution will be to have the entire flight be treated as a single firing unit, as that could be rather overwhelming with Stingers. Having two flights of 4-6 Stingers and a ship all firing from the same hex is pretty much what (4A3) is supposed to prevent.
The intention of the crippling rules (and is actually implied in the rule) is that the drones for that fighter are removed from play. Drones from any other uncrippled fighter on the map are unaffected. Simply put, the only difference between an individual crippled fighter and a crippled fighter in a flight is that the crippled fighter in the flight doesn't slow down. Everything else is basically the same.
And it is implied by the rule. Take the quote you used: "Any crippled fighter may no longer fire its weapons other than a phaser (5Q1e), and any drones in flight are removed..." The beginning of the sentence explicitly states the subject of the rest of the sentence: "any crippled fighter". It then provides what happens to that subject: it can only fire a single phaser and any drones in flight are removed. We are only talking about the drones for that fighter, not the flight, just like we are only talking about the phasers for that fighter, not the flight. _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
djdood Commodore
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 3413 Location: Seattle, WA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Following this thread with interest, as I had the same concern on my brief read-through yesterday. Not having opportunity to give it a thorough re-read, let alone actual play-through I'll just be monitoring. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dan Ibekwe Commander
Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 453 Location: Manchester UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wasn't proposing a general change to 4A3, and while I do intend to playtest these rules, due to starting a new and fairly intense job my playing time is going to be restricted for the next few months.
My issue is that a ship with 4 to 6 direct-fire fighters - a Lancer, or a Mongol, say (yes, my focus is on the Hydrans) - would lose between 25 and 50% of their firepower under the flight-level rules as they stand at present.
The excluded fighters *could* fire on a later impulse - if they have not been destroyed, if the target ship hasn't moved out of their (short) range, and probably at a fresh shield.
With respect, I'd suggest that losing the effect of one to three Gatlings per ship is non-trivial.
I'm also unclear as to how Defensive Fire would work with more than three fighters in a flight. Are only three of the fighters allowed to engage impacted Drones or Plasmas?
I do agree that six Stingers firing from one hex would probably be game-ending.
Would it be possible to form smaller flights of two or three fighters, so a Lancer could launch 2+2, or a Mongol 3+3? _________________ We are Hydrans! NO ONE LIKES US! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steve Cole Site Admin
Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3832
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The idea of flights of six is to reduce the number of units, so smaller flights defeats that purpose and takes us back to something that FC players will not play, will not accept. This way lies madness.
We'll see how testing goes. Absolutely positively is there NOT going to be a rule counting six fighters as one unit. At best, IF testing shows something is needed, six fighters would max out 4A3, but nobody has yet proven that there IS a problem. _________________ The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mjwest Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
First, (4A3) has no effect on Defensive Fire. Nor has it ever had an effect on Defensive Fire. If five ships are all in a single hex and all five are impacted by an individual drone on a single impulse, all five ships may fire phasers on their impacted drone in the same Defensive Fire Step. That has never been an issue before, so I don't know why it would change with fighters or flights.
Finally, keep in mind that while flights (and swarms) allow a group of fighters (or seeking weapons) to operate together as a unit in some ways, they are not, actually, a unit. They are still individual fighters that are operating as a group. As such, for anything not addressed by the flight (or swarm) rules, they are still treated as their individual selves. _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sgt_G Commander
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 529 Location: Offutt AFB, Nebraska
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
When using Fleet-scale ships, perhaps flights should be up to three fighters, instead of six??? Otherwise it hurts larger carriers by limiting the ability to split the fighter up for tactical maneuvering. _________________ Garth L. Getgen
Master Sgt, US Air Force, Retired -- 1981-2007 -- 1W091A |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mjwest Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably a good idea for fleet scale. _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steve Cole Site Admin
Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3832
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I concur, it should be three for fleet scale.
I added this to the rules text (but have no plans to post a new version):
[In Fleet Scale, a carrier is allowed a flight for every three fighters and the maximum size of a flight is three fighters.]
That way when we printed FIGHTERS ATTACK that particular fix is already there and nobody has to remember it. _________________ The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sgt_G Commander
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 529 Location: Offutt AFB, Nebraska
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
mjwest wrote: | And it is implied by the rule. Take the quote you used: "Any crippled fighter may no longer fire its weapons other than a phaser (5Q1e), and any drones in flight are removed..." The beginning of the sentence explicitly states the subject of the rest of the sentence: "any crippled fighter". It then provides what happens to that subject: it can only fire a single phaser and any drones in flight are removed. We are only talking about the drones for that fighter, not the flight, just like we are only talking about the phasers for that fighter, not the flight. | Mike, I still feel that the wording should read "... and all of its drones still in flight are removed ...." _________________ Garth L. Getgen
Master Sgt, US Air Force, Retired -- 1981-2007 -- 1W091A |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mjwest Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. While the current text can work, further clarification would help prevent future confusion. _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
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
|