Evasive Maneuvers proposal

willhc · Post by **willhc** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:15 pm

I think it would go more like this now:

Sensor Officer: Captain, the Federation ship has loaded photons and is closing within range
Captain: Helmsman, keep range over 50,000 kalakams and weapons, prepare to fire overloads. We will veer off after fire.
Sensor Officer: Captain, Federation appears to be charging overloads to fire
Captain: Helm, Evasive manuevers!
BOOM...crackle...crackle...
...recovers from shock...
Helm: Evasive plan enabled
Captain: Damage report!

We had this come up in our game this weekend. Lyran ship in between a Hyrdan and another Lyran enemy (free-for all). Start of the turn we both HET'd to get him at range two (on either side of him) and he went evasive. He had gotten himself into a bad spot and it saved him a good 20 points of damage. We opted to start using the new rule after that.

djdood · Post by **djdood** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:23 pm

Lemme guess, that was Jarrod, right?

Sorry I missed this session - wifey and I didn't get back from Mt. Vernon until 1 int he morning.

OGREAI · Post by **OGREAI** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:49 pm

I am disappointed in the new ruling.

I know and completely understand while this forum APPEARS a democracy, this is SVC's game and such his choice.

I felt that with the debate ongoing we showed there should be time for playtesting things out before a ruling. Perhaps there has been, but my group hasn't had the chance yet (was going to be Wednesday).

My only fear is that at some point we change back to the original rules and confusion ensues.

I'll comment more once I've had time to think through all the changes in nuance this brings.

OGRE AI

defurusu · Post by **defurusu** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:04 pm

This ruling does come as a surprise, I must admit. We tend to make fairly extensive use of EM in our group, so I guess we'll find out how big a difference it makes before too long. We already time our declarations of EM with a view to the timing of when it may be cancelled, which tends to mean declaring at an early point, so it might not make very much difference to us.

My first real thought on the subject relates to the Offensive Fire phase of Impulse 1. If you want to benefit from the good side of EM at this time, you must now have realised as much - and paid the energy - on Impulse 8 of the previous turn (or have been in EM at that point anyway). Not to mention paying the energy again (to continue EM) during Energy Allocation. Interesting...

Kang · Post by **Kang** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:29 pm

Seems a bit quick IMO. Four days from first mooting the idea to official ruling in the Communique, no less.

However as has already been said, this is Steve's game and his word is final.

Fair enough.

Now to go blow the dust off my photon tubes....

junior · Post by **junior** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:16 am

Kang wrote:Seems a bit quick IMO. Four days from first mooting the idea to official ruling in the Communique, no less.

It got a lot of comments, though, which would provide a lot of different points of view to analyze. The better everyone lays out their arguments, the less time it takes for him to come up with a final answer based on those arguments. And it's also possible that he's been considering something along these lines for a while now, and mjwest's post merely provided the final impetus to change things.

Savedfromwhat · Post by **Savedfromwhat** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:58 am

junior wrote:
Kang wrote:Seems a bit quick IMO. Four days from first mooting the idea to official ruling in the Communique, no less.
It got a lot of comments, though, which would provide a lot of different points of view to analyze. The better everyone lays out their arguments, the less time it takes for him to come up with a final answer based on those arguments. And it's also possible that he's been considering something along these lines for a while now, and mjwest's post merely provided the final impetus to change things.

just as an aside almost everyones opinion was negative on the change, except Juinor and and MJwest. I saw a lot of great reasoning against the change, and was not even slightly convinced that it should be affirmed. But, it isn't my game.

jmt · Post by **jmt** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:09 am

Sir Drake wrote:It is now live per the lastest Communique Sad to see the change

Yep, I agree. Given the discussions on this board, I didn't see compelling reasons to change the rule. What was the reasoning at ADB for the change?

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:24 am

So now there will be no announced EMing on Impulse 8 for sure. Well, maybe. If you can see into the next Turn to predict that it would be valuable to be under EM on Imp. 1, then it would make sense. EMing on Imp. 7 will have to really be worth the energy to only get it for 1 Impulse.

bobrunnicles · Post by **bobrunnicles** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:46 am

jmt wrote:
Sir Drake wrote:It is now live per the lastest Communique Sad to see the change
Yep, I agree. Given the discussions on this board, I didn't see compelling reasons to change the rule. What was the reasoning at ADB for the change?

Got to admit I'm curious about this one too......

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:51 am

Wow, given how few people actually supported this change that was not expected. Something controversial like fighters I can understand, they are looking to bring in something and need to work out how to do it - the controversy is how to do it. But a change to an existing rule to accomodate some ones tactical problems?

Reminds me of this quote from the wiki site discussing starfleet battles

the top, few, fanatical, SFB players, who constantly campaigned for new rules, rules fixes, and rules changes. This became a source of discontent for most of the rest of the players, who did not appreciate a game that changed every few months

Speed 32 drones as well, despite there will never be different drone types? Now in games we have to decide whether the game is late or early war in a game which didn't really get concerned about early/late period!

"mm, you have a kzinti so we'll play early war."

Kang · Post by **Kang** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:56 am

storeylf wrote:Speed 32 drones as well, despite there will never be different drone types? Now in games we have to decide whether the game is late or early war in a game which didn't really get concerned about early/late period!

"mm, you have a kzinti so we'll play early war."

I agree, but I'd hope that fast drones only come in in certain scenarios. For myself, I will always play Standard drones unless the scenario says otherwise.

With the absence of T-bombs, and unlimited reloads, I really can't see how fast drones are going to help this game system in any other context.

Rock Hudson · Post by **Rock Hudson** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:04 am

I'm honestly not over fussed with the changes, certainly as far as direct fier ships are concerened. My only thought is, however, that it's effects on plasma-armed vessels seems doubly orernous.

As it stood, it was possible for a plamsa vessel to close to say range 10, launch plasma and then EM offering one unshifted shot with a fairly long range launch, under the current rules you have to offer two turns. I'm not sure if this was intended, but it may seem more fitting for the EM to come ito being at the end of the launch rather than the direct fire phase, unless the additional pain to plasma is intended?

pinecone · Post by **pinecone** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:05 pm

Grantedly, I'm A Fed player, But thats not the only reason I Think the change was good. After all, with Feds and Selts turning like bricks, they probably can't keep up with a klink having gone evasive unless at slow speed. The hydrans don't face this problem quite as much, but it does seem a little to hasrh for the fed player (or selt) player. Remeber, there is always the sabre-dance tactic if the fly string-em-along-and-break-their-hearts (by not letting your ship break into individual atoms) no longer works.

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:35 pm

pinecone wrote: After all, with Feds and Selts turning like bricks, they probably can't keep up with a klink having gone evasive unless at slow speed.

For the ships I've seen and played with an equivalent klingon is usually equal or worse turn requirement after going EM, whilst the fed may not outmanouver them (speed depending) they won't get outmanouvered either. May not apply in all cases, but most I would expect. Plus the klingon can't HET so the fed can HET if needed to gain any intial facing needed then follow the klingon who can't do anything much about it.

Not overly familiar with selts turn mode wise. Though they rely less on a single crunch volley so should be slightly less concerned than say a fed captain about the shift. Feds are probably the worst affectd by EM as the power hungry crunchy photons only fire every 2 turns, that makes fed slightly more reliant on the dice gods. Though I think the EM 'issue' was over hyped, and definately (IMHO) the wrong change even if a change was needed, as in turning it into something that no longer happens when you declare it. I'm not keen on setting a precadent for 'I can't react to XX, so make him pre-announce XX and it happens later', the do things when you want rather than plan and then track or remember it is one of the great things about FC that keeps it nice and streamlined.