Cost of speed 32 Drones

[jmt]

(4G3b) LATE YEARS DRONES: During the later years of the General War (2580-2585), ships were armed with an advanced "fast speed drone" which moved at speed 32 rather than speed 24. For those scenarios set during this later conflict, use these higher-speed drones. This increases the point value of the ship by 0.5 points per drone (not drone rack, drone).

1/ What exactly does "per drone" mean? Since FC has unlimited reloads, does this mean the number of drone ammo boxes per launcher (its magazine)? If so, then a regular rack costs 2 points for its 4 drone magazine and a Federation rack costs 1 point for its 2 drone magazine.

2/ What FC scenarios are set in 2580 (Y180) and later? As far as I can tell, the only ones for sure at the Seltorian Mikly Way scenarios (as the bugs arrived in 2582 (Y182). Most FC scenarios are set earlier as the later years of the General War saw extensive use of fighters, carriers, gunboats (PF), and tenders - none of which have made a formal appearance in FC yet.

[Scoutdad]

JMT:
1) "per drone" means "per drone in a single load. For example, a ship with 2 drone racks (4 drones per rack) has 8 drones in a single load so it would cost 4 extra points. Reload costs are subsumed into the 0.5 points per drone.
Also, I would assume a Federation rack would NOT have to pay the upgrade cost for the ADD rounds, only the actual drone spaces.

2) Since the Fed Comm timeline isn't spread out like the SFB timeline is, I'd hazard a guess that unless scenario special rules state it's a late war scenario, the determination is made by mutual agreement of both players. Then if they decide it's a late war scenario, the drone speeds can be upgraded.

Follow-up question for MJWest:
If it's determined to be a late-war scenario, must all the drones on a single ship be upgraded? Can one rack have fast drones and the other medium drones? I realize that gets into extra record keeping, but a player might want to do that.

Follow-up question #2:
In a late-war scenario involving a fleet, must all the ships in a fleet upgrade drones to speed 32, or can some shipos retain medium (speed 24) drones?

[pinecone]

I belive that the scenario where the gorn and the klinks had it out is in that timeline, as well as the second two scenarios from line of battle.

[mjwest]

A scenario is in that time if the scenario *says* it is in that time.

You are both correct on the "drone cost". Basically, it costs 2 points per "normal" drone rack and 1 point per "Federation" drone rack.

In general all drones in the entire scenario are speed 32 (or 24 or 16). This isn't SFB's "Commander Options". This is just a scenario rule that says "drone speeds for this scenario are 32".

In a pick-up game, since both sides have to agree to use speed 32 drones anyway, you can always do whatever you can agree to. But the intention is that all drones are a certain speed.

[Scoutdad]

All drones, same speed!
I thought that would be the case, but it never hurts to have confrmation.

Besides, that will certainly save on the record keeping aspect of it.

[Kang]

Although at first I saw that it is stated quite clearly that the scenario dictates the drone speed, and was indeed reassured by that statement, already I am feeling uneasy about this new rule and can't help feeling that this is the thin end of the wedge for FC getting more complex in terms of detail.

After only two days or so of the new drone speeds being available, people are talking about 'agreeing' drone speeds outside of preset scenarios. When is this going to stop? I don't want to be a killjoy here, but the last thing FC needs is all these variants and goodness knows what coming out for players to 'agree' on. Who's not going to want Fast drones, for goodness' sake? I know that Speed-8 drones have been available for some time for 'early' scenarios, but who's gonna choose those outside a scenario's dictates?

It may not be meant to be Commander's Options, but that's the way it's going.

Next thing you know it'll be multi-warhead drones, the ability to use different drone types or whatever. Before long it's going to take nearly as long to set up an FC game as it did to set up SFB!

I never played as [or against!] Kzintis in SFB because of the difficulty [yes, difficulty] of setting up the drone loads. [Even setting up a drone-variant Fed CA was a major task!] I have thoroughly enjoyed playing the Kzintis in FC precisely because it is so simple. Speed-24, 4 damage points, 12 warhead. How much simpler can it get? No arguments, no 'agreements', it's perfect!

Choice is not always a good thing in this context. Please, please, please, let's keep it simple.

[derek]

Choice is not always a good thing in this context. Please, please, please, let's keep it simple.

G'Day

I'm not worried, the sky is not about to fall Faster and slower drones already exist, as already pointed out (somewhere else in this forum) they're mentioned in Klingon Attack in relation to the Four Powers War scenario. Stating the points cost of fast late/post war drones has only served to clarify the obvious question, I'm only surprised that the points costs of slow drones wasn't mentioned too (or have I already missed that?).

Cheers

Derek

[mjwest]

It may not be meant to be Commander's Options, but that's the way it's going.

No, actually it isn't.

Saying that "if both players agree" does not make something an "optional rule". It simply says that "if both players agree" you can do pretty much whatever you want.

Remember, we have had "if both players agree" since the first rulebook. Whether we are talking about photons on Klingons, disruptors on Romulans, cloaks on Klingons, Stingers without ships, imported SFB rules, or whatever, the concept has been here since the beginning.

Let's take another example. Suicide Freighters are only appropriate if a scenario's special rules calls for one. However, if the two players agree, they can use one (or more for that matter) in their own games however they want. Does that make it an optional rule? No. It simply says that if both players want to do something weird, no harm, no foul.

Same for drones. The speed of drones is 24. If there is a special scenario rule that changes that for that scenario, (4G3a) and (4G3b) give the parameters for doing that.

Really, that is all it is, and all it is intended to be.

[Kang]

Mike and Derek - thanks for that. Sorry about the rant; people who know me will know that I tend to go off on one every now and then but soon settle down

I see the point about the clarification of points value, although I'm still not clear on the points: two points for a standard rack, one for a Fed rack yes, but there are more than one set of reloads. However, if the points value is set at that for an entire scenario, then that's it defined so all's well and good.

Mike - the choice thing is clear. I'm just afraid of a Pandora's box situation, as I explained. But I also realise that things are up to the players.

[Archduke Russell John I]

Mike,

The problem is people are going to require the use of Speed 32 Drones out side of the scenario. Like I said earlier, I play the Kzinti almost exclusively (at least unitl the ISC enter the fray) and I am pretty much going to insist on Speed 32 drones from now on.

And saying a rule that has to be "agreed on by both players" is not an optional rule is semantics. For an optional rule to be used, both players have to agree to use it. So please explain to me the difference between an "optional rule" and a rule that can only used if "agreed to by both players"

[mjwest]

I thought I had.

Let's try it this way. Rule (4G3s) is an enabling rule that can only be used in the special rules of a published scenario. This is similar to Degraded Crew, Suicide Freighters, Retirement, and a couple others I can't think of.

Unless both players agree to use it.

But your insisting on always using (4G3b) is no different than if your opponent were to insist on always using (4G3a). The later has obviously never occured. Why should the former?

[Archduke Russell John I]

I thought I had.

Let's try it this way. Rule (4G3s) is an enabling rule that can only be used in the special rules of a published scenario. This is similar to Degraded Crew, Suicide Freighters, Retirement, and a couple others I can't think of.

Unless both players agree to use it.

But your insisting on always using (4G3b) is no different than if your opponent were to insist on always using (4G3a). The later has obviously never occured. Why should the former?

Ok, here you define a "rule that can only be used if both players agree to it". Basically, it boils down to if the scenario doesn'tspecific, both players must agree.

Now please define an optional rule.

[OGREAI]

Ok people, I know I understand both points of view, and I think everyone else does also.

We are talking about rules to a game like they are laws.

as an absurd example:

Two players could sit down to play Federation Commander and agree to use the rules, board and pieces to chess if they both agreed to it.

If we want to argue semantics of the english language, why are we bothering to play Federation Commander?

just my two credits worth

OGRE AI

[mjwest]

Ok, here you define a "rule that can only be used if both players agree to it". Basically, it boils down to if the scenario doesn'tspecific, both players must agree.

Now please define an optional rule.

Obviously, I am never going to convince you, but I will try one last time, then quit.

You can do anything you want to if both players agree to do it. If that makes it an "optional rule", then so be it. But calling any possibility an optional rule seems a tad excessive.

I will reiterate a prior point: There is no appreciable difference between you (as a Kzinti) insisting on using (4G3b) and your opponent (opposing a Kzinti) insisting on using (4G3a). You would not accept an opponent with such a position; I fail to see why your opponent should be expected to accept the reverse.

There was no hue and cry when (4G3a) was published. Now there is this sudden concern and complaint about (4G3b). They are both exactly the same type of rule. (4G3b) did not introduce multiple drone speeds; (4G3a) did. Yet it wasn't a concern until (4G3b).

Getting back to the whole "optional rule" thing, we already have rules that enable scenario special rules: Suicide Freighters, Degraded Crew, and Retirement, just to name my favorite three. That doesn't even include the mentions, in the rules, about Klingons with photons, Romulans with disruptors, and everyone with cloaks. Yet, no one had a single complaint about any of that.

Now, suddenly, (4G3b) creates this tempest in a teapot. It doesn't introduce multiple drone speeds; (4G3a) did that. It doesn't introduce what you want to call "optional rules", there were several before it. Yet somehow (4G3b) is the end of FC as we know it. This makes absolutely no sense. I am at a total loss.

Again, I won't belabor this any more. I don't know how to make this any clearer. So, if this all makes me an idiot (No, wait. The EM change already did that.) so be it. I did try to explain it.

[storeylf]

There was no hue and cry when (4G3a) was published. Now there is this sudden concern and complaint about (4G3b). They are both exactly the same type of rule. (4G3b) did not introduce multiple drone speeds; (4G3a) did. Yet it wasn't a concern until (4G3b).

If Id' seen the 'a' rule I'd have probably have complained about it. I haven't seen it yet, is it another communique thing? (which I may not have spotted yet). If it introduced multi speed drones then I'd have complained. No drone variants was the stated promise, and I consider Mr. Coles definition of these drones an odd twist on the word 'variant', paraprasing - 'Not a variant, it is just speed 32'. If I have 2 drones with different characteristics (speed in this case) then I have variants (they 'vary' in their charateristics). Call them early war variant, mid war variant, late war variant. Saying speed 32 isn't a variant, it is just speed 32 is no different to saying anything else isn't a variant it is just whatever it is (damage, armor, dogfight, EW, MW etc).

That said, they are in. I'll just take any statements of intent with a bigger pinch of salt than I was.