DAC and fighters

[Mike]

Mike West:

Was this rule modified in a CRUL or the Rev. 5 ruleset?

The way it reads to me, it is saying that any player can elect to take a Frame any time there is a skip in the damage allocation procedure.

Example: Suppose a player's ship takes damage and incurs a skip in the damage allocation. He takes the skip on the first run through a DAC, but there are still more hits to allocate. The next time through a DAC, he sees that there will be a skip for the last hit to allocate, but the next column is something he does not want to lose, so he takes a Frame instead of the skip. The damage has been fully allocated and the one system he did not want another hit to be scored on was protected.

In this example, a player used both options: once he skipped and took the damage normally while another time he took a Frame instead of the skip.

This seems correct to me. Am I right on this?

[USS Enterprise]

As far as I know, you're correct.

[mjwest]

Mike,

That is a completely reasonable and correct application of the rules. (BTW, that probably is enough for a tactical note. Write it up and submit it!)

To the best of my memory (and that is all I have to go on at the moment, since I am still on the road and my old rule books are at home), this has always been in the rules.

There has been clarifications for using it to protect the "last system" (where you can't make yourself blow up) and for directed damage (where the skipped points are lost before they can be applied to frame damage). But the base rule has been there from the start.

[Kang]

The main point was that, if all players agree, you can all decide to take the option away and make it a requirement to apply any skipped damage points to frame damage. This will result in much quicker games with a lot more 'warp core breaches'. Removing the option from the rule is what requires the agreement of all of the players.

Geez. Never thought of it like that. Woohoo!

[Steve Cole]

I wish somebody had mentioned that rule so I would have remembered to delete it from Revision 5. It warps the game.

[Kang]

I wish somebody had mentioned that rule so I would have remembered to delete it from Revision 5. It warps the game.

Well to be honest I can't really imagine someone using it unless they're desperate. I don't really think of it as warping the game; it doesn't really get used that often.

[USS Enterprise]

I do it all the time. Usually whenever I'm gonna lose a weapon or later on a power box.

[mjwest]

I wish somebody had mentioned that rule so I would have remembered to delete it from Revision 5. It warps the game.

I am not sure which aspect of the rule you dislike. Either way, I don't think it really is a big deal.

To do what Scoutdad suggested require the agreement of all of the players. No one player will do it on their own because it puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. In effect, it is a "house rule" (like using photons and cloaks on Klingons) and should not affect the evaluation of the rule. To be clear, what Scoutdad suggested is NOT actually in the rule. It is simply an unconventional application of that rule.

For what Mike mentioned, it really isn't a whole lot different that the "protect the last of your systems" rule. I admit it is gaming the DAC somewhat, but there are already tactical notes that game the DAC far more than this. And this particular gaming of the DAC is really only good for a single point or two.

[madpax]

As I said, although I like this DAC, I prefer a more random way to allocate damage. I remember using a deck of cards for SFB, which I have no more. You draw ten cards, applying damage according to the cards, and excess aka frame when a particular number of skipped hits were drawn.
I wonder if this deck of cards is still sold?

Marc

[Scoutdad]

ADB had two sets of card based DAC systems.

Battle Damage: Code Red was the first and came out when the Commanders edition was being sold. I still have that one at home, but it produced some "wacky!" results.

SFB: BattleCards was reduced later. It contained two full sets of cards (one for each player in a 2-player game). Shuffle them up, draw ten cards and apply damage as indicated. After ten, re-shuffle ad re-draw until damage was resolved. Or, you could combine both sets into one really big set and draw 20 cards at a time.

It worked much better. You still got the occasional weird result, but overall it worked well... and fairly rapidly, as well.

Neither set is currently being sold, although the occasional set of Battlevcards does show up on ebay every now and then, but it usually goes for much more than I think it's worth. Then again, I managed to obtain4 complete sets while they were still being sold... so I really don't need another set.

[madpax]

IIRC, I had the first one (code red), but my deck was flawed, as I had twice the same sheet, and one of that sheet of cards repaced one other sheet. But I was able to retreive the 'lost' cards.
But what do you mean by 'whacky' results?

Marc

[pinecone]

With the frame damage rule, two barrages will be almost certain death.

[madpax]

Of course, that would need a bit of tweaking.
For example, no more alternate, but after x (4, for example) skipped damage in a row, score one frame.

Marc

[Hod K'el]

With the frame damage rule, two barrages will be almost certain death.

Battlegroup Acadiana plays with the 'if you don't have it to take the hit, take a frame hit' rule. This usually requires four to five 'barrages'. And I have to assume you mean alpha strikes.

This rule speeds up the game and gives a more realistic play view. If you die from taking too many frame hits, you stayed in the battle too long and were a bad Captain. It teaches you when to 'run away and live to fight another day'.

[terryoc]

IIRC Battle damage: Code Red let you take damage on Marines in some circumstances, and didn't recreate the SFB DAC properly.