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 

Same-hex shield facings
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3477
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason I have not posted much followup here is because I really don't know what else to say.

The line of reasoning I used at the time is that when two ships are in separate hexes one sub-pulse, then enter the same hex, then the "last ship in" is used to determine relative facings. If two ships move from one hex to another hex together, then they are still in the "same hex". The physical hex may be different, but they have not stopped being in the same hex. That was the line of reasoning I used at the time. And, quite frankly, no one brought up the other interpretation prior to now. (Nor did I think of it.)

As for the concept of "relative facing", it is just a term I use to get across the idea that if a ship turns in place and has a new shield facing the opponent still in the same hex, the relative positioning has not actually changed, even though the facing shield has.

The whole idea that two ships would enter the same hex, then either stay in that same hex, or continue to move such that they keep occupying the same hex each step of the way was never really thought of. It should be an extremely rare situation. And when you consider that a ship can always reset the relative facing by simply spending one sub-pulse (not impulse, but a single sub-pulse) in different hexes, it is not hard to do.

So, I am a bit baffled by this tempest in a teapot over something that is very rare, is not a new ruling, is not a change to a rule, and is rather easy to work within.
_________________

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: 1950
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
If two ships move from one hex to another hex together,


I think what the guys are discussing basically is what constitues moving 'together' - in the same sub-pulse irrespective of order of precedence, or does the order or precedence mean that for a very short time they are not moving 'together'.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pmiller13 wrote:
Quote:
The only reason I can see being put forward so far (by people other than MWest) for MWests ruling is 'realism'. However it is only realism in a very narrow band of scenarios. In any other scenario it makes things even more unrealsitic. That, apart from it being contradictory to the rule, just seems bizarre - "we like realism even when it makes things less realistic."


You are saying here that the examples some of us have put forward for reasons why the rule should be interpreted one way (a way that differs from your opinion) are only a very few narrow examples. But the exact opposite is true as well. The examples you have put forward showing why the rule should be interpreted the way you believe it should be are also very narrow examples.


To be clear, I am not arguing my examples are why the rule should be interpeted as X, they are a counter to those arguing that 'realistically' ships will remain in the same relative position if they remained in the same hex. That only applies in some cases, the examples I have given are just cases where such an argument falls down. I have actually stated twice that 3c6d doesn not handle all my examples realistically.

Quote:
I cannot off the top of my head ever remember a time when I have needed to invoke this particular rule to figure out what was in arc or what shield was hit.


There have been a couple of games over the last couple of months of regular play where the game has hinged on working out who will be on what shield, at range 0 things tend to be decisive. You don't invoke because you want to, you apply the rule when its says it applies.

Quote:
In my CA/D7 example it was the D7 paying for a HET and already having the ability to move after me. In the example sited at the being of this thread however the 2nd ship is not doing anything extra to be able to change that ‘relative position’ and so therefore there is not change.


Ok I accept that people play for fun, but I really couldn't play like that. One of the points of rules is to stop games heading into 2 people arguing mid game about what is or is not 'obvious' or 'realistic'. Moreso if it is a tournament. There is no difference between the scenarios rules wise. Both started in the same hex, both ended in the same hex.

How far do you go with the approach of the "rule says this, but I think it obvious that something else would apply instead"?

I could equally argue it is obvious that in the OP the situation changed, the more manouverable ship or the ship with the manouvering advantage as defined by the rules (speed) has used that advantage to change the position. The F5 came in via a side slip off the rear and as the ships carry on the F5 who is a) more manouvable and b) is correcting back after a shallow turn (so was not moving parallel to the BC in the first place, therfore not applying the same amount of movement in the direction the BC was), pulls in behind the BC.

Losing a game through tactical error is one thing, losing because the other guy has decided that a rule (that you based your tactics on) should be ignored based on his concept of 'realism' at that particular point in time, no thanks.


Last edited by storeylf on Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
The reason I have not posted much followup here is because I really don't know what else to say.

The line of reasoning I used at the time is that when two ships are in separate hexes one sub-pulse, then enter the same hex, then the "last ship in" is used to determine relative facings. If two ships move from one hex to another hex together, then they are still in the "same hex". The physical hex may be different, but they have not stopped being in the same hex. That was the line of reasoning I used at the time. And, quite frankly, no one brought up the other interpretation prior to now. (Nor did I think of it.)

As for the concept of "relative facing", it is just a term I use to get across the idea that if a ship turns in place and has a new shield facing the opponent still in the same hex, the relative positioning has not actually changed, even though the facing shield has.

The whole idea that two ships would enter the same hex, then either stay in that same hex, or continue to move such that they keep occupying the same hex each step of the way was never really thought of. It should be an extremely rare situation. And when you consider that a ship can always reset the relative facing by simply spending one sub-pulse (not impulse, but a single sub-pulse) in different hexes, it is not hard to do.

So, I am a bit baffled by this tempest in a teapot over something that is very rare, is not a new ruling, is not a change to a rule, and is rather easy to work within.


Fair enough.

It is new to those hadn't spotted it before. I found a commanders circle article on how same hex combat works. It isn't in there either. Not that it would have helped me, I never knew the article was there till last night. If I had spotted it when you brought it up I would have raised it then. Does that imply that those who are involved in an initial rule query get to have some influnce on the ultimate decision by you, but after that it is set in stone?

It is not what I would class as very rare, not very common maybe, but when we play it is not that rare to get into the same hex (indeed with the likes of cloaked romulans it can be almost a given that you want to get into their hex in order to shoot them) and then start making decisions on what to do next, those decisions being based on understanding the rule. I expect that this ruling will have quite an effect on those decisions.

Neither would I agree it is not a change to the rule, whilst I see where you are coming from, I don't really accept that the rule says that the same hex is a hex from previous subpulses. 'in the event' 'where the firing ship' and 'are in' all indicate a strong sense of 'currently' which would mean 'the hex' and 'that hex' is the current hex not some earlier hex. It also seems to run strongly counter to the ruling you made about' same time'. On top of that it requires that you engage in unanticapted book keeping whenever you enter a same hex the first time, it may be easy enough in a 1 vs 1 duel, but in larger multi ship fights remembering who entered from which direction a couple of sub-pulses ago is not easy, we struggle to remember slips last subpulse if we forget to put down a marker, never mind relative positions from an earlier sub-pulse where no one fired so we never checked.

OK. You are the rules guy. I think the ruling makes no sense in terms of 3c6d (or for others, 'realistically'). But if you are sure it has to be that then so be it. I'll just have to agree to disagree and live with it.


PS I apologise if it seems I am causing a 'tempest in a teapot'. Just the mind set you get into after spending your life studying law or developing software to some specification, where in both cases being very precise about the meaning of things is a requirement, and where getting meaninful feed back on why things mean what the other person thinks is expected. Of course the precision in wording applies to wargames as well, sloppy, confusing or badly phrased rules don't make for a good game.

Anyway i'll try and keep quiet now, and probably fail abysmally Evil or Very Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1950
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:
PS I apologise if it seems I am causing a 'tempest in a teapot'.

It were me wot started it....

storeylf wrote:
Anyway i'll try and keep quiet now, and probably fail abysmally Evil or Very Mad

Like me, Storeylf is a Yorkshireman. We say it how it is.... Wink
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess part of my problem understanding what would happen to 2 ships that moved from a same hex into another same hex is the "argument from silence" approach to it.

Granted, it would be a rare occurrence, but it has happened in a game in which I played. I was more than understandably curious.

I understand MJWest's ruling now (I think?). No matter what the order of precedence might be if ships move into the same hex from another same hex, their relative positions remain the same that they were before they moved into the same hex to start with, even in the rare and unlikely cases of being several sub-pulses before, entire impulses before, or over a turn break.

What threw me for a loop was the ruling from April, 2009 about shield facings when ships enter the same hex. The odd case of one ship having a better turn mode or going faster than the other caused there to be a difference in the shield facings when they entered the same hex.

I was applying that model to this situation. As it turns out, that was a mistake.

I think I have it cleared up now.
_________________
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
phul
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 05 May 2010
Posts: 41
Location: St. Louis

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My apologies to continue this discussion. But I need to clarify, since this thread had generated confusion for me on this rule where I had none before.

Example:

Ship A going 8
Ship B going 16

Say on at the last Sub-Impulse of Impulse 1, Ship A moved into Ship B's hex, resulting in Ship A Shield #1 looking at Ship B shield #4. On Impulse 2, Ship B Decel's on Sub-Pulse 2. On SP 4, Ship A moves forward (being the slower ship), and Ship B follows.

How I've been playing it:

Ship B Shield #1 is now looking at Ship A shield #4.

Per my understanding of this thread, what should happen is this:

Since they have not occupied a different hex at the end of any sub-pulse since Impulse 1 Sub-Pulse 4, Ship A shield #1 is still facing Ship B shield #4.

In addition, since 'relative position' does not change, but facings can...

If on Impulse 2, Sub-Pulse 4 Ship B instead did a left turn, and Ship A did a left slip:

Ship B shield #4 would be facing Ship A shield #6
-or is it-
Ship B shield #5 would be facing Ship A shield #1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see how Ship A going 8 can move into Ship B's hex with B going 16 on the last sub-pulse of an impulse? Ship B would have precedence and would move second because it is the faster ship (unless B decelerated on the last sub-pulse of the impulse...that was not stated).
_________________
Mike

=====
"Sometimes our best is not enough. We must do what is required." -- Winston Churchill


Last edited by Mike on Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
phul
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 05 May 2010
Posts: 41
Location: St. Louis

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
I don't see how Ship A (going Cool can move into Ship B's hex (B is going 16) on the last sub-pulse of an impulse? Ship B would have precedence and would move second because it is the faster ship (unless B deceled and that was not stated).


It may be an unlikely scenario, but I'm asking it with this example specifically because the answer would clarify my confusion. And I can think of a few situation that might cause this arrangements of ships. Regardless of that, the question is how to proceed from there.

Also, the later half of my question doesn't appear to be clear in this thread, but the question is raised by what I understand to be the 'clarification' found in this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ship B shield #5 would be facing Ship A shield #1

Relative direction is what is preserved. To add letters to it lets say they were both facing A. Impulse before, as you say, Ship A's #1 facing Ship B's #4. So Ship B is in the A direction of Ship A.

Ship B turns left, facing F. Ship A slips left facing A. Since the two have not left the same hex they are still in the same relative position as before: Ship B is in the A direction from ship A. Thus the above configuration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

phul wrote:
My apologies to continue this discussion. But I need to clarify, since this thread had generated confusion for me on this rule where I had none before.

Example:

Ship A going 8
Ship B going 16

Say on at the last Sub-Impulse of Impulse 1, Ship A moved into Ship B's hex, resulting in Ship A Shield #1 looking at Ship B shield #4. On Impulse 2, Ship B Decel's on Sub-Pulse 2. On SP 4, Ship A moves forward (being the slower ship), and Ship B follows.

How I've been playing it:

Ship B Shield #1 is now looking at Ship A shield #4.

Per my understanding of this thread, what should happen is this:

Since they have not occupied a different hex at the end of any sub-pulse since Impulse 1 Sub-Pulse 4, Ship A shield #1 is still facing Ship B shield #4.

In addition, since 'relative position' does not change, but facings can...

If on Impulse 2, Sub-Pulse 4 Ship B instead did a left turn, and Ship A did a left slip:

Ship B shield #4 would be facing Ship A shield #6
-or is it-
Ship B shield #5 would be facing Ship A shield #1


You are in the same boat as me. The way you played before is 'wrong'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1950
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to necromance this thread, but the relevance will be clear.

The new rulebook says, in (3C6d),
" If two ships in the same hex move on the same sub-pulse to the same (other) hex, and the ships have the same speed and turn mode, the relative facing remains unchanged ..."

What if they have the same speed but not the same turn mode?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aye - I spotted that in the other preview post, but was waiting to see the book when I atually bought it to check that out. On the face of it, it sounds like same time does now mean only if simultaneous move and is determined by last moves, rather than at the point they initially moved into same hex.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3477
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Storey has it right.

Basically, the very last move is the one that counts, so shield position can indeed change sub-pulse to sub-pulse, even if the ships are continuously moving into shared hexes.

So, the old case only applies if the ships are the same speed and same turn mode.
_________________

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: 1950
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, to clarify, that's now different from the old system?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail 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, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
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