Federation Commander

What I said still holds, I don't think it 'needs' a new function, defensive or offensive per se, and certainly not in the way you were suggesting or for the reason you were arguing (essentially that it needs another function purely for sake of having another function). It is a good defensive system as is, so long as you view things from the perspective of the universe the game is set in - excellent anti drone/anti fighter when the primary races it faces use fighters and drones.

Incorrect. I never suggested anything for the "sake of having another function" I suggested changes because the IPG was too weak and pretty much never used and not fun to play.

I only half agree with what the OP was saying the problem was (they fly like feds), however, IMHO that reasoning is moot. I don't think the suggestion that has been arrived at needs a balance reason or whatever to be accepted. I think it is a good idea to convert SFB aspects of a race/weapon irrespective of such arguments so long as the conversion is not complicated.

I can only immagine what sort of game you design on your own.
Regardless you never said that originally. You were content with what was offered.

Not having the offensive ram aspect of an ESG would have been a bit unfortunate, but, if for some reason it couldn't be done whilst keeping to the streamlined ideals of FC, then I would not have been in favor of giving it some other compensating feature that it has never had (e.g. the anti plamsa rule). Whilst I never played Vudar in SFB (they arrived after I stopped playing) if as I gather Vudar have a similar ECM type ability in SFB then this seems a good idea even if it does not work precisely like it does in SFB - just as the ESG in FC doesn't work like it does in SFB it does a good enough job of reflecting it whilst being faster and easier to use than in SFB.

I think looking to SFB for guidance when bringing over a race is important. However I dont think we should be afraid to think outside the box. You look to SFB as if its the bible of Star Trek gaming. I think that its possible to come up with other ideas that didnt originate in the 80s. I loved SFB back in the day, and today, I prefer Fedcoms streamlined rules and flavor. Try moving outside your comfort zoen and dont be afriad to suggest things, even if they dont produce any fruit, they might generate further ideas. Thats how creative endeavors work.

Sometimes, reading some of the posts you make, it seems like you would rather stiffle creativity and simply take what is handed to you.

Guys, enough. This isn't necessary, and this argument won't accomplish anything. Please let it rest.

I was in the middle of typing something which I was going to move to general discussion rather then hijack this thread.

I'll put in my 2 cents here.

I would like to see the alternate mode of the IPG included at least for playtest.

If it is too unbalanced, it can always be toned down a bit. Although I don't think that will be the case.

Certainly, a Vudor using his IPG for ECM has just made himself a drone target, because the IPG has just been used for something else.

I've been thinking about the new rule and I have a couple of questions/comments

1. Can the same IPG be used multiple times in a single turn subject to the limit of the four power (so a CA with two IPGs could have a +1 for the entire turn if it wanted to burn the power)?

2. Can an IPG be used in both modes (jamming and drone killing) in the same impulse? The rule makes it clear that it would require separate power for each, but could you spend 1 power for +1 jamming and 3 power for anti-drone?

3. Back when the Erratic Manuever rules were changed one of the issues with the old way was this example:
Fed CA burns HET to get a good shot on a target, but target then goes EM and CA is at disadvantage firing.

If the above was a significant problem, does the same issue exist with the IPG? This seems like it could be very difficult for a Photon armed ship (well any, but the Photon case is probably the most visible) as it could well have to get 2 or 3 good firing opportunities to actually get a chance to fire

Ok I will take a shot at answering Part 1 and 2. I am sure MJW or someone will come along shortly with a more detail answer if it is needed.

eunderko wrote:I've been thinking about the new rule and I have a couple of questions/comments

1. Can the same IPG be used multiple times in a single turn subject to the limit of the four power (so a CA with two IPGs could have a +1 for the entire turn if it wanted to burn the power)?

2. Can an IPG be used in both modes (jamming and drone killing) in the same impulse? The rule makes it clear that it would require separate power for each, but could you spend 1 power for +1 jamming and 3 power for anti-drone?

I will let MJW quote cover 1 and 2.

mjwest wrote:The IPG can only be used in one mode in any given impulse. It can switch modes impulse to impulse, however, subject to whatever power it has left.

eunderko wrote:3. Back when the Erratic Manuever rules were changed one of the issues with the old way was this example:
Fed CA burns HET to get a good shot on a target, but target then goes EM and CA is at disadvantage firing.

If the above was a significant problem, does the same issue exist with the IPG? This seems like it could be very difficult for a Photon armed ship (well any, but the Photon case is probably the most visible) as it could well have to get 2 or 3 good firing opportunities to actually get a chance to fire

I am not seeing this so far in my playing around with it. Since the max shift is capped at +3 from all sources. If you wanted to keep the jamming up the power must be paid to charge the IPG all over again on the next impulse. Also since Offensive Fire comes after Defensive firing you can pick wither to fire or not based on if he used the IPG to take out a Drone or a Shuttle. EM was pay once and you were good for the next 8 impulses wasn't it?

1. Yes. An IPG may be used each impulse, subject to power limitations.

2. No. An IPG may only be used in a single mode in a given impulse.

3. No, this is not a problem, for multiple reasons. The biggest that comes immediately to mind is that EM continues indefinitely. The IPG lasts for only a single impulse (subject to the answer to #1, above). Also, that was never the intent for EM; it is absolutely the intent for the IPG.

Right on, Mike, thanks.

Got anything Vudar that needs doing?

Not at the moment. I am mostly focusing on getting everything together for Briefing #2 so Steve can pick and choose what to use.

well the first "biggest" reason is way off. Sorry, but the problem was that very first firing after the HET. After than, ships could manuever away, etc.

Just dawned on me, but for the use of 2 power from one of the IPGs, the Vudar have the instant EM:

Declare EM and IPG +2 jamming. Bam. Immediate EM:)

Also to be clear, not trying to say that the Photon thing is a problem. If the Vudar balance is such that that is the way it is supposed to be, great. Just didn't want to stay silent and have it turn out to be an issue.

Erik