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 

Question on When Damage in Defensive Fire Phase Takes Effect
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mattyfoe
Ensign


Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:24 pm    Post subject: Question on When Damage in Defensive Fire Phase Takes Effect Reply with quote

I consider this a fairly simple question but we had a dispute over it yesterday.

In rule 1E2c, it is stated that "Any resulting damage (from seeking weapons that get through defenses) is resolved immediately, before the Offensive Direct-Fire Phase (1E2d)"

This means that any weapons (or other systems) disabled by seekers in 1E2c would be unable to fire (or be used for any other function) in the ensuing 1E2d, no?
_________________
'If I have told you once I have told you a thousand times; DON'T PROVOKE THE BORG!'
-Q
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike
Captain


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This means that any weapons (or other systems) disabled by seekers in 1E2c would be unable to fire (or be used for any other function) in the ensuing 1E2d, no?



That seems to be the correct interpretation.
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: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are correct.

Any weapon disabled due to seeking weapon damage in the Defensive Fire Phase will be unable to fire in the Offensive Fire Phase. Likewise, and drone or torpedo disabled due to direct weapon fire in the Offensive Fire Phase (or from seeking weapon damage in the Defensive Fire Phase) will be unable to launch in the Launch Phase.

The various "simultaneous fire" rules only apply within the given phases (Defensive Fire and Offensive Fire), not across an entire impulse.
_________________

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


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1966
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
Likewise, and drone or torpedo disabled due to direct weapon fire in the Offensive Fire Phase (or from seeking weapon damage in the Defensive Fire Phase) will be unable to launch in the Launch Phase.

...except for the damaged launcher plasma rule, of course Wink
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kang wrote:
mjwest wrote:
Likewise, and drone or torpedo disabled due to direct weapon fire in the Offensive Fire Phase (or from seeking weapon damage in the Defensive Fire Phase) will be unable to launch in the Launch Phase.

...except for the damaged launcher plasma rule, of course Wink

That be true. Even though disabled, it may still fire for the rest of the turn.

But it is still disabled prior to the Launch Phase.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Magnum357
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 182

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait a minute now! I would have sworn 2 years ago (early in FC developement) that ALL damage does not take effect until the next Impulse (in this case, Defensive Fire damage) so even though a Phaser might have taken off line by a Seeking weapons hit in the Defensive Fire Phase, it still could be used for defensive/offensive fire purposes in only that Impulse it was Disabled. Has this changed? Am I incorrect on this?

I know my memory might be faulty, but I would have sworn that is how Fed Commander works. I thought the whole point of this game system was to encourage "me too" rules? KISS (keep it simple stupied)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope, this is how it has always worked. (Witness all of the "plasma download" discussions that have taken place comparing the risk of upgrading and bolting, versus getting stuck launching a smaller warhead from your now disabled launcher.)

As I mention above, all "simultaneous fire" is within the context of a given Phase. Once the punishment as been meted out, it is applied in that Phase.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Magnum357
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 182

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I probably will regret replying back on this, but I think I prefer my original rule opinion more. This is getting into the nitty-gritty of rules, defining what phase a particular weapon fires/causes damage and I prefer (espeically for a board game) too keep the rules as simple as possible. If I want complexity, I might as well just go back to SFB.

Is there something wrong with allowing you to have "one shot" for a disabled weapon/system to be used in the impulse it was diabled in? The way I discribed it above keeps this simple and to the point.

Sorry for disagreeing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1966
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disagree all you like Smile. It keeps the discussion interesting. New ideas often come from disagreement!

The way I rationalise it is that the seeking weapon impacted during movement anyway, and the defenders were firing at it all the way in. This is what gives you the 'range-1' shot at seeking weapons. I see it that they were so busy shooting at the weapon that shooting at another target wasn't the uppermost priority in their minds.

Now that doesn't cover all the cases, I know; nor does it answer the question of 'why' in terms of when the damage actually happens. But it's the way I like to imagine it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike
Captain


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If I want complexity, I might as well just go back to SFB.



Now wait a sec... Even though the two game systems are based on pretty much the same stuff, they are two different systems.

If someone wants complexity, they could go the Borders of Madness route without having to go to SFB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Magnum357
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 182

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kang wrote:
Disagree all you like Smile. It keeps the discussion interesting. New ideas often come from disagreement!

The way I rationalise it is that the seeking weapon impacted during movement anyway, and the defenders were firing at it all the way in.


This is why I had to comment about this. Because I'm almost 100% certain that the rules were structured so that all damage really takes effect at the end of the Impulse. So even though a Phaser that will most likely be disabled by a Seeking weapon impact, could still be used for Defensive/Offensive fire, but only in that Impulse of Impact. That is why damage is all lumped together for allocation purposes at the end (or very near the end) of an Impulse. Heck, even the Order of Procedure cards indicates this! Why the change?

Mike, maybe that is what I'm getting confused with here. Maybe this is a rule definition of Boarders Of Madness, not regular Fed Commander.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike
Captain


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(1E2c) Step 3...
Quote:
If a seeking weapon is not destroyed or tractored, it hits the shield it was approaching, causing the number of damage points specified in their rules (for example, 12 by a drone). Any resulting damage is resolved immediately, before the Offensive Direct-Fire Phase.
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 Mar 03, 2009 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Maybe this is a rule definition of Boarders Of Madness, not regular Fed Commander.


I don't believe so. I can't remember anything in BoM that dealt with this. All the BoM rules have to do with additional systems, weapons and such. BoM, to my knowledge, does NOT mess with any of the rules on how FedComm is played. Nothing in the sequencing is altered.
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: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
I don't believe so. I can't remember anything in BoM that dealt with this. All the BoM rules have to do with additional systems, weapons and such. BoM, to my knowledge, does NOT mess with any of the rules on how FedComm is played. Nothing in the sequencing is altered.

Mike is quite correct on this. One of the whole points of BoM is that it is a pure superset of Federation Commander. The intention is not to make any changes to Federation Commander to allow for BoM rules, but rather make sure any BoM rules fit within the existing structure of Federation Commander. Any changes that might occur would only be incidental to allow for the addition of those new rules, not systemic.

Also, always remember that BoM is not Federation Commander. It does use Federation Commander as the rules base, but it is still separate.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hod K'el
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Lafayette LA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:22 pm    Post subject: BoM Reply with quote

Okay, I gotta ask...if BoM is a superset of FC, then why is it considered 'separate'? I ask because I was thinking that BoM was a detail oriented addition to FC so if you wanted to play details, you could...but you do not HAVE to play details...you could just play standard FC rules and ignore BoM rules. Where am I screwed up in my thinking?
_________________
HoD K'el
IMV Black Dagger
-----------------
Life is not victory;
Death is not defeat!
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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