Federation Commander

Jean · Site Admin Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 1733

Not everyone has been confrontational; SVC and I appreciate that.

I just want to keep this on a constructive level and give you an avenue to make the improvements in wording that will achieve your goal and our goal: the best rulebook for our players to use.

Jean
WebMom

HappyDaze · Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject:

HappyDaze · Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:29 pm Post subject:

HappyDaze · Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:35 pm Post subject:

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

I hate to mention another company’s product on this forum but HappyDaze (or really any of you out there reading this) have you ever play Warhammer or Warhammer 40k or just read their rules? Right in their rulebooks they admit that their rules can not possibly cover every contingency that may come up on the table. They suggest having a quick reasonable discussion, limiting the time so that it does not destroy the game, if a consensus cannot be reached you simply role a dice with the high roller winning and his interpretation of the rule standing till the end of the game. At the end of the game when passions are cooler have the discussion again and figure out what to do in the future. That is exactly what this forum is for. I have been playing War games (both board and miniature) for 30 + years. In all that time the only rule sets I have ever seen that did not have wholes in them were extremely short, ten to fifteen page rule books, nothing like the complexity of Federation Commander. Would we all have liked a perfect product that did not have any errors? Yes and we would have liked Jean to have her wings to. The credible suggestion is to let SVC and the gang get past Origins and get the CRUL started going again.

P.S. I would have REALY liked to have seen Jean with the wings.

Jean · Site Admin Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 1733

OK guys, I've asked you nicely to provide constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. The majority of what has been posted here since my last post is not very constructive and I don't see a lot of specific suggestions for Mike West. In fact, I don't see any specific suggestions for improvements.

The description on the back states: Fully updated: All of the updates, changes, adjustments, additions ... everything. Yes, it was updated. Yes, it included the complete CRUL. Yes, it has ALL of the rules. Yes, it was revised, and I know how much we revised it because I was on the phone for hours with SVC as we made changes.

Are they all of the changes that some of you want? Obviously not. Are some of you complaining instead of making it better? The answer seems to be as normal, some folks delight in complaining. Some of you, I feel sure have every plan to help and are probably working behind the scenes with Mike.

HappyDaze, you need to offer something constructive to the conversation the next time you post in this topic. You have suggestions about how to do so above. I recommend very, very strongly that you follow those suggestions. I have had to spend more time on this Forum responding to you in the past few days than I have had to spend down here in months. That is not a distinction that most of our customers desire to attain.

I have every expectation that when the time is appropriate, we'll gather the Federation Commander Team and do the same thing we did for Federation & Empire this year and issue a completely reworked and integrated rewrite of the rulebook. We don't do that every few years because that takes a significant commitment of time from every staff member. Right now, that significant effort is going to getting out a new product for everyone to enjoy. That product required a huge time commitment in playtesting, game design, and rule writing so that the product is accessible to all.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have just spent a good amount of time responding to this topic instead of proofreading and editing. I need to get back to doing that.

Jean
WebMom

HappyDaze · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:05 am Post subject:

Since I don't see it in the CRUL, and since War & Peace is coming out soon, let me add this one:

(4R2b) You can hold an overloaded (4R3) ion cannon for two points per turn.

(4R3a) You can add this overload energy only at the instant of firing.

To me, these seem contradictory.

HappyDaze · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:10 am Post subject:

Also, why does the Photon Torpedo Table have two separate entries for Range 0 and Range 1? Since EVERYTHING is the same on those entries, shouldn't the next revision feature a single combined Range 0-1 entry?

Savedfromwhat · Commander Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 657

Happy daze, the rules for the ion cannon were specifically stated to be playtest rules that were added to the 5th edition as a preview.

Also if you changed the photon table then you would change the rate at which photons miss with a die roll shift. You see photons auto-hit at range 0 even with a shift of 1, you need a shift of 2 to cause a 6 to be a miss.

mjwest · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject:

mjwest · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:24 pm Post subject:

HappyDaze,

Let me cut to the chase: What is your endgame?

You claim to love the game, yet all you have done is rip the company and its products. You have not yet gone away angry after Jean's admonishments. (Which is a good thing.) The person who can most address things (Steve) has even weighed in. The stance of ADB is clear. So, what do you want?
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

mjwest · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:26 pm Post subject:

HappyDaze · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:57 pm Post subject:

HappyDaze · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject:

HappyDaze · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:02 pm Post subject: