Federation Commander

Looks like the proverbial cat is out of the bag... the djinn is out of the bottle... etc.

Mongoose Games has released the first rules preview.
Read all about it here!

Then ask all about it in this thread.

So to go back to the Romulan question I was still hoping for an answer about, the relative maneuver options for the Eagles, Kestrels and Hawks will depend on their respective Turn scores, plus whether or not they have the Agile trait?

(Speaking of which, would a D7 or K7R really have the right level of agility relative to the Fed CA with just the added trait, as opposed to a shorter Turn score?)

Nerroth wrote:So to go back to the Romulan question I was still hoping for an answer about, the relative maneuver options for the Eagles, Kestrels and Hawks will depend on their respective Turn scores, plus whether or not they have the Agile trait?

Since we tried to play a wide range of ships against a wide range of ships, we haven't played enough Romulan battles to definitively say, the Hawks fly this way, the kestrels fly that way, and the eagles are just different.
That is a big factor though. Most of the Kestrels and 'hawks are agile and they have similar turn scores.
The Eagles on the other hand tend to have a higher turn score (on a per class basis) when compared to the newer ships.

(Speaking of which, would a D7 or K7R really have the right level of agility relative to the Fed CA with just the added trait, as opposed to a shorter Turn score?)

Ah. But you haven't seen the stat block for the D7 yet. What if it had a turn score of 4 and was agile? That would make a huge differnece, wouldn't it???

Scoutdad wrote:Since we tried to play a wide range of ships against a wide range of ships, we haven't played enough Romulan battles to definitively say, the Hawks fly this way, the kestrels fly that way, and the eagles are just different.
That is a big factor though. Most of the Kestrels and 'hawks are agile and they have similar turn scores.
The Eagles on the other hand tend to have a higher turn score (on a per class basis) when compared to the newer ships.

So, the Hawks are closer to the Kestrels than the Eagles? And would they still hold the "middle ground" in terms of agility and firepower? (On paper, at least?)

Ah. But you haven't seen the stat block for the D7 yet. What if it had a turn score of 4 and was agile? That would make a huge differnece, wouldn't it???

I was thinking of this line from the blog entry:

Well, with Turn 6, it can make two 45 degree turns if it moves at full whack (similar to a Klingon D7, but that ship has the Agile trait, allowing it to turn in tighter).

If the D7/K7R has a Turn Score of 4, would that not allow it three turns at full speed, rather than just two?


EDIT:

Looks like you could do up the Middle Years versions of the CA and CC fairly readily; drop the T phaser-3s and drone racks on each, plus lose the AH Phaser-1s on the CA (unless you want to do the CAR), and maybe pare the shields down to 22. I wonder how much those changes would shave off the point costs?

Yes.
Eagles turn like concrete mixers.
Hawks turn like family cars.
Kestrels turn like Porsches.

And yes, there are several ships that can trn 3 times a turn (if so desired) and some are agile and can tunr up to 90 degrees each turn.
[Three wrongs don't make a right... but lefts do!]

WHANG!
Romulan Stealth Griswold... they never see it coming!

That's a great preview. Stuff I really like:

-Command Cruiser gives you +1 command!
-Seems like you are being encouraged to travel as fast as possible to get more "turns" in - this of course is limited if you want to reduce speed to for power drain

Command +1: This gives you a modifier on your initiative roll each turn. Making it more likely that you can determine who moves first and the winner of hte initiative each turn gets to fire and resolve damage first.
That can be key to winning.!

Speed:
We tend to move fast anyway... if we need to turn twice we do, if not - we don't.
Some of the playtest groups have been puttering around at slow speeds with massive clouds of shuttlecraft in flight to provide incoming defensive fire. I prefer to run at high speed and just avoid trouble.

Scoutdad, can you tell us what the Devastating trait does? Does the Precise trait still give a +1 to the attack table?

Yes. Precise gives a +1 to the attack table roll.

Devasting weapons increase the depth of the critical hit.
If a critical hit is scored by a devastating weapon, it scores additional criticals as indicated by the bonus.

I.e., Photon Torpedoes are Devasting +1. If a photon hits and scores a Dilithium Chamber critical, it not only damages the 1st critical hit location on the Dilithium Chamber row, it also damages the second Dilithium Chamber critical location.

Devasting weapons are incredibly effective at scoring those criticals.
4 Attack dice of Photons... each multihit 4... each overloaded... that's 32 possible hits, each of which is a +1 devastating hit.
They're not all going to be criticals, but even 10% of them becoming criticals can ruin your day.

I noticed on the BBS that you said shields couldn't be repaired. I swear either you or someone else mentioned that they could be repaired. Am I thinking of an older draft of the rules?

So overloads double the amount of damage (as in SFB/FC)? Is overloading a Special Order?

Edited to add: just looked at the ACTANA critical hit tables. Crits do extra damage as well, +1 for the first level then +3 or more for each subsequent level, making Devastating devastating.

@Garydee: Yes. In an earlier draft of the rules, there was a shield regeneration phase. It was removed to streamline the process since the regen amount was neglible in terms of actual defense.

@Terry: Yes Overload is a special action, useable only with Photons and disruptors. And it doubles the the multihit value of the heavy weapon.

Having no shield regeneration is probably my only complaint so far. It's part of SFB and FC so it should be in there. Oh well, it's not the end of the world.

Scoutdad was there any thought give to make a Special Action that was geared just to something like Shield Repair? Since you already have a step in Fed Com that does just this I don't see why it could not be modified into a special action.

Dal Downing wrote:Scoutdad was there any thought give to make a Special Action that was geared just to something like Shield Repair? Since you already have a step in Fed Com that does just this I don't see why it could not be modified into a special action.

I do not know what the ultimate plans are, but in the original draft... you could lower shields for a turn - then when they were raisedagain, they were back at full.
This quickly went away, but Matthew said (paraphasing) Do not be surprised if Shield Repair comes back as a special action.

I take that to mean it has at least been considered. Now, whether or not it's implemented...