Cloak cost of the NHK and RHK

HappyDaze · Post by **HappyDaze** » Wed May 26, 2010 9:02 am

The Romulan NHK and RHK Command Cruisers both show a Cloak cost of 2 + 1/2 on the ship cards. However, the Revision 5 rules for the cloak note that these ships have a Cloak cost of 2. Are these ship cards in need of revision, or is this an error in the Revision 5 rules?

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Thu May 27, 2010 1:54 am

My understanding is that if the rulebook and Ship Card disagree, the Ship Card is correct. However, Mike West is the Official Answer Guy and will be able to settle it.

HappyDaze · Post by **HappyDaze** » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:01 pm

So the official answer is...?

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:04 pm

Go with the ship cards.

HappyDaze · Post by **HappyDaze** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:47 am

That fifth revision rulebook is turning out to be a steaming pile of crap. This isn't as bad as when I discovered that web casters had the duration cut in half, but it still seems sloppy. Can't wait to see the gouging that the sixth revision will be.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:31 am

Eh, it happens. Federation Commander is still a relatively young game, and it has some growing pains. Nearly all of them were handled in the Rev5 rules, but a few made it through. It happens.

Sorry you are so disappointed in the RRB.

HappyDaze · Post by **HappyDaze** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:22 pm

I can buy a "young game" and "growing pains" angle for a game in its first edition, but not the fifth edition of what is essentially the same game as the first edition with clarifications. That "it happens" only demonstrates to me that concern for the product quality is lacking, and that more time should have been taken before rushing out with a fifth edition rulebook.

JimDauphinais · Post by **JimDauphinais** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:08 pm

Bulletproof, clear rules are a highly desirable goal. However, there is a limit of what volunteer-based testing can uncover versus what happens when a set of rules is exposed to hundreds or thousands when it is published. Moreover, those rules that are played by smaller subset of the player base are bound to be less well developed. Also, I have yet to see a game company avoid issues coming up several revisions into series rules. It is not an issue provided the company involved maintains an ongoing compilation of errata and clarifications (much like Mike has done with FC) and eventually folds that information into the rules.

Overall, I feel the fifth edition rules are very well done despite a few issues here and there. In my opinion, they are above average in quality versus that found in the wargaming industry as a whole. I have a lot of experience with the good, the bad and the ugly for rules. FC's fifth edition rules are definitely in the good pile.

Bolo_MK_XL · Post by **Bolo_MK_XL** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:38 pm

Then there's the issue that base rules may be on Revision 5, but some newer rules may still be in their first/second printing --

HappyDaze · Post by **HappyDaze** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:11 pm

Yes, that is an issue. It really makes me think the War and Peace rules for the Andromedans will be sloppy - and that some of the people on these boards will be OK with that sloppiness. Perhaps in another two years they can get it right with the Re-revised Seventh Edition...

pmiller13 · Post by **pmiller13** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:57 pm

HappyDaze the main difference you will find between Federation Commander (and really all of the game products from this company) and games produced by other companies is that the people who created this game care enough for the game designer to get on the chat boards as well as his designated representative (for FC thatâ€™s Mike West) and admit when there has been an error and try to correct that error. Other companies simply do not do this and other companyâ€™s definitely have the same issues. Not to name names but if you are a fantasy war gamer the biggest fantasy war game out there is getting yet and again another rules revision, that will incidentally require that you update all of your army books as well. Here when there is an error or a loophole itâ€™s discussed with the community as a whole, a fix is decided on and that fix is implemented. At worse you have to spend money on a pen to write in the change or for some paper and ink to print it out. The change does not invalidate the entire printed product line and force you to buy everything over again.

HappyDaze · Post by **HappyDaze** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:47 am

There are plenty of other game companies that maintain active online resources to deal with errata. What you don't find in any other company that I'm aware of is a rush to a fifth edition in less than 5 years since the game was released. I feel that the rules book was a shoddy rush job, and nothing other companies do or don't do changes that.

Savedfromwhat · Post by **Savedfromwhat** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:41 pm

This just in forum users... we don't have to change happy dazes mind, or make excuses for ADB. I think the companies amazing track record speaks for itself. Let's let this topic die.

Bolo_MK_XL · Post by **Bolo_MK_XL** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:00 pm

Seeing Happy is in the region with Micro$oft, can understand him not liking changes ---- He gets enough of them from M$ ---

HappyDaze · Post by **HappyDaze** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:12 pm

So, just to see if there are more errors, why do many of the Orion ship cards show weapon tracks (usually Photon and Plasma-F) for wing mounts that are indicated to not be capable of holding them? These ship cards (such as the BR) came with the very same product that gives the most recent rulings that make such ships (or the rules) wrong. So, is it the ship cards or the rules that are wrong this time?