Federation Commander

Tiigo · Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject: The "Me too" rule: 1E4

There are a handful of us who just started playing FC, one who used to play SFB. We have a current game that has come to a standstill over the interpretation of this rule (why it took this long to happen is beyond me...), taken in context with the sentence in 3A1 describing Direct-weapon fire: "One player says 'I am firing this weapon at that target'".

Is the intent that the attacking player declares they are attacking AND indicates what they are using and whom they are attacking, then any other player can say "me too". Or, does the attacking player only have to say "hey, I'm attacking"?

thanks for the help!

pmiller13 · Lieutenant JG Joined: 12 May 2009 Posts: 64

The clarification of (1E4) is that the point of the ME TO rule is to eliminate secret written decisions. It also says that the firing of each weapon is a unique decision. The only limitation is that once the decision to fire or overload a weapon is made that you can not go back and decide not to fire it.

So player one can say I am firing my photons. Player two says I better fire by disruptors on overload, so player one says well then I am going to fire my phaser 1’s as well. These keeps going on until both players are done declaring weapons fire. Then the results are roled.

mjwest · Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject:

Mr. Miller got it right. You have to specify who and what in addition to just the intent.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

Kang · Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject:

Yeah, you need to declare weapon and target. If it's an issue who fires at what first and all that, just reveal your decisions one weapon at a time.

But if your game comes to a standstill, then I reckon your people are taking their fire decisions too seriously, and should go have a beer or something to loosen them up. Or simply say you're not firing and then see who blinks first Smile

_________________

Tiigo · Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:37 am Post subject:

Thanks everyone for the replies....we put the rule nazi out of our misery and the game proceeded quickly from there!

Kahuna · Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:41 pm Post subject:

Kang · Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject:

btw, Tiigo - welcome to the game and the Forum too.

Good to have you aboard Smile

_________________

Tiigo · Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject:

Thank you, Kang, I have a had great learning the game so far!

MajerBlundor · Lieutenant SG Joined: 03 Apr 2009 Posts: 123

We just treat this and similar decisions as a bidding war.

"Anyone want to fire?"

"I'll fire my photons."

"Well then I'll fire my disruptors."

"Ok, I'll add in my Phaser Is."

"Anyone else want add anything? No? The we'll resolve fire."

Rule of thumb: you can add shots, must specify target, power, etc., but can't take away shots or change targets.

djdood · Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:36 pm Post subject:

Exactly the way my group does it.

You can escalate as much as you want, but no "take backs" and the "auction" is over as soon as the chart-caller declares "going once-twice-done" and moves on. Everybody ticks their weapon used tracks for weapons they committed. Then the dice start rolling.
_________________

Kahuna · Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject:

Me too!

I couldn't help it as we were talking about that rule specifically. Very Happy

Again, my group has never had a problem with this.

Wolverin61 · Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:35 pm Post subject:

When we play, it usually goes like this:

"Ok, it's fire declaration."

"I'm firing."

"I'm going to shoot, too."

"Ok, what are you firing?"

"Two overloaded disruptors and two phaser-twos at your ship."

"I'm firing two photons and a phaser-one at you."

Maybe we've been doing it wrong all these years. Wink

_________________
"His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Kang · Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:48 pm Post subject:

That's near enough to what we do, Andy. But generally, our initial fire declaration [your 'I'm firing...'] is just your second step: 'I'm firing two phaser-1's and a photon at your ship'.... 'Ok then, I'm firing all four disruptors and the forward phasers at your ship. Chew on that, sucker'.... 'Ok then, that photon...I'm overloading it....'

The interesting thing there, in passing, is that I'm not sure it's legal to overload that photon after I've declared I'm firing it. Some clarification on that would be welcome. I think it's legal, because I have seen a similar example here on the forums, but I'm not sure.
_________________

Wolverin61 · Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject:

That's an interesting point, Tony. I know a few times we've played, we haven't actually said they were overloads until we're resolving fire ("...disruptors first [roll dice]... two hit, they're overloaded so that's sixteen points of damage..." etc.) Guess it wouldn't really matter unless you were using directed targeting, which we hardly ever use anyway.
_________________
"His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Mike · Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:03 pm Post subject:

I think it could matter a great deal whether you knew if someone was firing regular or overloaded secondary weapons before fire was resolved.

When we announce weapons fire for weapons that can be overloaded, we announce whether they are overloaded or not.
_________________
Mike

=====
Sandpaper gets the job done, but makes for a lot of friction.