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 

More evasive maneuvering questions.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Targ
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 125
Location: York U.K.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I totally agree with Storeylf on this one. This rule seem to me tantamount to give a ship 6 movement points of free power on impulse 8, and at best rewards bad power management and worst throws up some dubious tactical ideas that don’t fit with the feel of the game. For example using all your power to fire weapons on 7 or before then going evasive on 8, which seems to me you are getting a chance to fire weapons you shouldn’t have the power to if you want to go evasive.

M1a1dat like the idea for splitting up the player energy allocation. How do you deal with initial power allocation as only one player will have power for a complete turn?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1929
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fwiw, it has already been established that the power you receive at the start of the turn (tokens, coins, paperclip position on the ship card, whatever) is never lost as a result of enemy action that turn. Even if you lose all your power boxes, but still have say 20 power points left, those points are your until the end of the turn.

One such thread where this is established is:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2490
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3442
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EM is not treated like cloak because that is not how Steve wanted it to work. That was in fact suggested at the time (by someone) and was rejected. Ergo, EM does not work that way.

The phrase says "power", not "energy". It is referring to the number of blue boxes on the ship card. Again, the reason for this is because if you declared EM on impulse 8, and were not able to generate the power, you would immediately blow up during Energy Allocation on the following turn. The phrase is there to prevent you from doing that. That is the purpose of that phrase.

Forcing the ship to have enough actual energy in impulse 8, then never use it makes no sense at all. The energy that is used on the following turn is generated on the following turn and applied during that turn's Energy Allocation. You talk about precedent in the game, and there is absolutely no situation where you have to have energy available for a given action, then don't use that energy for the action. Given that the action doesn't happen until next turn and the payment of energy doesn't happen until next turn, why should the ship require the energy this turn?

Another way to think about "Exception-2" is as an extra way to invoke "Exception-1". It allows a ship that would like to start EM during Energy Allocation a way to do so that does not require a huge energy investment this turn. The reason for this is so that a ship doesn't have to effectively pay double for EM in order to be under EM for Impulse 1. Forcing the ship to have energy for EM during Impulse 8 in order to declare the "Exception-2" completely violates then entire reason that "Exception-2" exists in the first place! If you have to have energy available to invoke "Exception-2", then there is no reason to even have it in the rules at all.
_________________

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


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3442
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kang wrote:
fwiw, it has already been established that the power you receive at the start of the turn (tokens, coins, paperclip position on the ship card, whatever) is never lost as a result of enemy action that turn. Even if you lose all your power boxes, but still have say 20 power points left, those points are your until the end of the turn.

Just to be clear, that is not what I am saying.

I am saying you must have sufficient number of blue boxes left so that you can generate the necessary energy next turn. This turn's energy is irrelevant in this equation. Likewise, the only restriction on next turn's energy is that there is a sufficient amount of it to pay for the EM cost.

None of this violates or affects the above principle.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
m1a1dat
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 88
Location: 91320

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had forgotten about the particle cannon delay, good catch on that Elf. And since cloak is paid for differently i didn't really consider that. Which makes me wonder why cloak is paid for by the impulse in FC when in SFB it is paid for by the turn much like EM is. There does seem to be a problem with the plasma races being able to declare EM and then being able to launch plasma on impulse 8.

Thanks for the ruling on the voided cloak problem, Mike.

Targ, the offset player would just have done an energy allocation and set his base speed and normal things like pre-loads and just have been cruising along at his base speed for 4 impulses with the game starting on his 5th impulse. So he would be doing another energy allocation between the 4th and 5th impulse of the game start. There were a number of fun, weird things to do like this on the SFB forum, not things you would normally do but just to try something different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1832

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:

The phrase says "power", not "energy".


According to the rule book point of power and point of energy and energy token are interchangeable terms, they "mean exactly the same thing".

Ok I think the rule is daft and could have been far better handled. But if the rule is what it is then at least try and make it clear in the rule book that you are referring to undamaged power boxes rather than just 'power'. Like I said there is no way on earth I would have ever thought it meant what you are saying it does, as it is so contrary to the rest of game system.


Quote:
Forcing the ship to have enough actual energy in impulse 8, then never use it makes no sense at all.


I never said it wasn't used, in fact I stated that it may well then get used to fire weapons. Allowing someone to be EM with no power at all makes far less sense, so I don't follow your logic, at least the way we played it you had to be able to theoretically pay for it at the point declaration as with any impulse, therefore you had to have kept back the power for it (as in plan your power useage), even if you then use it for other things. That other thing may even be not use it at all during imp 8 but just to ensure you had full batteries over the turn break. Neither scenario makes sense, but the current rule is far more nonsensical than the way we thought it was meaning.

Quote:

You talk about precedent in the game, and there is absolutely no situation where you have to have energy available for a given action, then don't use that energy for the action.


The game is full of precedent, any other action you do needs paying for (and there for having free power) at the point of declaration, even HET which you may not actually use has to be paid for when you declare it. This rule talks about delaying payment whilst saying you must have power at the point of declaration, that fits entirely within the concept of having to have free power at the point of declaration like everything else even if actual payment gets delayed.

Up until now there was no precedent for having no free power for an action and still being able to use the action, why would anyone have considered the wording to mean what you say when there is no precedent for it. Every wording of having power for something means having energy tokens at that point in time.

Quote:
why should the ship require the energy this turn


Because the rule was "it could not declare EM unless it had enough power at the time of declaration", it says at the time of declaration, the declaration is on imp 8. Every other reference to enough power means enough free power, power and energy tokens are stated to mean exactly the same thing. The game is based around managing your energy and being unable to do things if you don't have the energy for it.

The problem is we have a nonsense rule (exception), that creates daft oddities, because steve says it has to be different to cloaking. But I see no logic behind either why it has to be different to cloak or so complictaed compared to much simpler and cleaner alternatives (that happen to be similar to cloak and hence acceptable as a mechanism). His game, but I'd prefer a logical argument as to why. Different for the sake of different is not always good, in fact it is usually bad from a rules perspective, it needlesly complicates things 'just to be different'. Maybe I was wrong but I thought FedCom was meant to be the simpler cleaner faster alternative to SFB. So why not use the simpler,cleaner and consistent approach to 2 similar things (cloak an EM).

Along with numerous other contradictions and inconsistencies in the latest rule book, the wording on this really needs to be more explicit - in fact it probably would have been clearer if you had never even put that sentence in.


Last edited by storeylf on Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 639

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

storyelf it really seems like you don't like this game I am sorry you find the rules so "daft".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1832

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Savedfromwhat wrote:
storyelf it really seems like you don't like this game I am sorry you find the rules so "daft".


What logic (or lack of) did you apply to erroneously arrive at that conclusion?

I find this particular rule daft. that doesn't mean I don't like the game, nor that I think the rules in general are daft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 639

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just all of the rules attacks I have read coming from your corner. If a rule doesn't fit the way you think it should you tell us how it is stupid, dumb, daft, or Illogical. I understand not liking how a rule works but coming on the forums and flaming it is just rude. Mike West has already clarified this rule there is no longer a need to beat the dead horse about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
droberts441
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 40
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I admit when I read the rule, I came to the same conclusion as "storeylf"

I am glad "mjwest" gave a reason:

mjwest wrote:
The parenthetical comment is just saying that if the ship cannot generate enough power to pay for Evasive Maneuvers when it makes the declaration, it can't make the declaration. The comment is important, however, as it is there to prevent a severely crippled ship from effectively self-destructing by declaring EM when it is impossible to power it. It is not saying that you need to have enough unused energy at the moment of declaration on impulse 8.

Knowing the parenthetical comment was basically made for a specific intent (not allowing a crippled ship to self-destruct by declaring EM instead of the regular self-destruct rules) makes sense to me.

Thanks "mjwest" for clarifying and "storeylf" for asking the question to get it clarified.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Targ
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 125
Location: York U.K.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes I think there is an issue here but this is getting close to a fire war. Can people step back for a while? Please
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1832

PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Savedfromwhat wrote:
Just all of the rules attacks I have read coming from your corner. If a rule doesn't fit the way you think it should you tell us how it is stupid, dumb, daft, or Illogical. I understand not liking how a rule works but coming on the forums and flaming it is just rude. Mike West has already clarified this rule there is no longer a need to beat the dead horse about it.


But how does me thinking a rule is daft lead you to believe I do not like the game itself? Disliking one aspect of something hardly leads to disliking the whole.

Its a bit like a rule writer saying he doesn't see the confusion, given someone has asked the question and someone else has asked for the answer to be confirmed (with an explanation of why the confusion). Is the writer being rude by implying those asking are daft or is he just flaming? I'll assume he is being honest and really doesn't understand how the wording, and how it fits in with other rules is inconsistent with the intent and hence confusing, and try and explain it again. Given people actually are confused then there is something that can be learnt about how the rules could be clearer. I seriously thought after the first reply that mjwest must have misread the question, I really expected him to come back and change his answer. Saying he did not understand the confusion definately required further explanation.

I enjoy discussing the game cos I like it so much. I would say exactly the same thing in person to mjwest as I would here. I'm pretty sure that if I was discussing in person that it wouldn't be seen as being rude (so much easier to express things verbally).

I like to hear logical arguments about why a something is as it is, rather than just cos so and so says, that begs the question why do they say? If SCole says that is the way they are then that is the way they are, and that is the way I'll play them. But as yet no logical argument against other mechanics has been provided. If someone came along and said your mechanism leads to the following issue XXX and that really was an issue I may well go aha.. I see why you went another way. I've gone round this a few times in my head and how cloaking works and don't yet see a logical reason to have done EM the way it was compared to how it could have been done.

Back to your mis-assumption. FedCom has been my favourite game by a large margin for the last couple of years, I've bought everything so far, and can't wait to see war and peace. I'd play it a lot more if I had opponents with more free time, as it is once week and an additional game about once a month is all I can get in Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3442
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK guys, please keep this calm. Quite frankly, I think it has been. I just want it to stay that way.

To the question of why EM and cloak are different, the are a few reasons.
1) They were added to the game at different points. The cloak method wasn't really thought of at that time.
2) The power required is of completely different scales. EM requires from 1.5 to 9 points of power, depending on the size of the ship. Cloak requires way more than that. This caused different approaches in how it was done.
3) EM costs don't break well for impulse-to-impulse. It would pretty much require the cost to be increased to 8 movement points, rather than 6. And it is way too late to make that type of change.

On to my confusion. I actually had two issues.

The first was that I was laboring under knowing what the intention was despite any wording. Quite frankly, until storeylf pointed out his reading of the rule, it hadn't dawned on me to read it that way. I do agree that the wording should be cleaned up. (To be clear that the parenthetical comment is about the ability to generate power, not have the energy available right then.) Hopefully, that will happen in the next revision of the rules.

The second was that I was amazed that reading was considered preferable. The whole point of "Exception-2" is to prevent the need to "double-pay" in order to get EM on Impulse 1. storeylf's reading significantly mitigates that advantage. And the whole idea of having to reserve energy for a function it can never be used for was, quite frankly, a little startling.

Yes, "Exception-2" is a true exception in multiple ways. To be perfectly honest, there are aspects of it I don't like. However, when EM was modified to include the delay, it seemed like the best way to allow the use of EM starting in Impulse 1 without requiring paying for EM twice. In some ways it is actually rather elegant (as it is really just a special way to invoke "Exception-1"). But it is also incredibly clunky (with the whole "blow up" thing if you lie).
_________________

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: 1527
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And didn't all this EM business start because of the change made to when EM would occur and take effect?
_________________
Mike

=====
"Sometimes our best is not enough. We must do what is required." -- Winston Churchill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3442
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
And didn't all this EM business start because of the change made to when EM would occur and take effect?

No, we don't need to start that discussion all over again.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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