Federation Commander

pmiller13 wrote:

We are not talking about 'reality'

But the whole point is to use reality as often as possible, especially where the engineering supports the idea.

While that was the point in SFB I doubt it's the point in FC.

Also I've always thought that was the worst game design philosophy ever constructed but that's personal bias. Realistic =/=> fun. Sometimes the two are related but one does not imply the other and (to me) fun should be paramount in any game.

Neither are we even on a parallel course particuarly

They are in fact on parallel courses or they would not be continuing to enter the same hexes move after move. That is the point of maintaining the relative positions. If they were not on parallel courses they would not be in the same hex on the next move of both ships.

The rule seemed perfectly clear as written in the rulebook to me. MJW's ruling seems completely counter to it. If we embrace that ruling you may as well let a tailing ship that moves second assume any relative position it wants.

In the original example Ship 1 is running. Ship 2 slips into the hex and so is off the opponent's number 5. They both them move straight twice. Why can't, on that second straight, the tailing ship have shifted over to the number 3 in the same hex? Or the 4? It seems perfectly reasonable, it's slip mode is up, it could move an entire hex, why not a tiny part of a hex?

I would rather it be the written rule as written. Go back one move for the last ship to enter the hex. He's off the 4. Simple.

Okay, let me make sure I have Mike West's interpretation straight.

Another example.

A Klingon ship with a B turn mode is moving at speed 16 in direction A. A Fed ship with a C turn mode is also moving at speed 16 in direction A and is in the hex immediately behind the Klingon, but accelerates and enters the same hex as the Klingon on sub-pulse 3. Both ships move direction A on sub-pulse 4 and end up together in the next hex on the map. Suppose in the next impulse, both ships go speed 16 and continue in direction A so that they end sub-pulse 2 and 4 (the sub-pulses in which they would each move) in the same hex with one another.

My understanding of Mike West's interpretation of this is that the Fed ship would be off of the Klingon's #4 shield and the Klingon would be off of the Fed's #1 shield. This would be because both ships ended each sub-pulse in the same hex and because the last time they were not in the same hex the Fed was behind the Klingon (1 hex range off the Klingon's #4 shield).

The other interpretation would say that in the next impulse when both ships had the same speed and were in the same hex, the Klingon would be off the Fed's #4 shield and the Fed would be off the Klingon's #1 shield because the Klingon moved into the hex after the Fed did because of the Klingon's better turn mode.

Mike is saying that it doesn't matter which ship enters a hex last during a particular sub-pulse. All that matters is their relative positions before one ship entered the same hex as the other.

The other interpretation is saying that the order that the ships move into the same hex during a sub-pulse determines relative position. The corollary is that things such as baseline speed with acceleration and/or deceleration and turn mode can change relative position if ships continue entering the same hex on ensuing sub-pulses.

Does that about have it?

Mike wrote:My understanding of Mike West's interpretation of this is that the Fed ship would be off of the Klingon's #4 shield and the Klingon would be off of the Fed's #1 shield. This would be because both ships ended each sub-pulse in the same hex and because the last time they were not in the same hex the Fed was behind the Klingon (1 hex range off the Klingon's #4 shield).

The other interpretation would say that in the next impulse when both ships had the same speed and were in the same hex, the Klingon would be off the Fed's #4 shield and the Fed would be off the Klingon's #1 shield because the Klingon moved into the hex after the Fed did because of the Klingon's better turn mode.

Mike is saying that it doesn't matter which ship enters a hex last during a particular sub-pulse. All that matters is their relative positions before one ship entered the same hex as the other.

This is probably exactly why MJW's ruling works as it does. The Fed got behind. The Klingon having a better turn mode doesn't mean it gets to slip behind for free.

In practice the Fed is going to brake hard because if he doesn't the Klingon will and he will overshoot. So neither one is moving, probably, but your example is a good one. Your example actually convinced me that MJWs ruling is probably better than the literal and simple reading of the rules.

From MJW:

When two ships enter the same hex, their relative positions are set and stay that way as long as they occupy the same hex. If they both move into another hex in the next sub-pulse, the relative positions will be maintained. (The above thread has some examples.) To get new relative positions, the ships must spend at least one sub-pulse in different hexes.

The rule says to determine what relative position they are in you move the last ship to enter the hex back one move. MJW is saying that "When two ships enter the same hex..." is triggered by being in a different hex in at the start of sub-pulse X and being in the same hex at the start of sub-pulse X+1. So this is the only time relative positions can be set.

Perhaps a simpler way of looking at it would be to think of it that the ships occupy the relative angles/positions that they did defore they began their co-habitation, no matter who moves in what order after that time.

pmiller13 wrote:

We are not talking about 'reality'

But the whole point is to use reality as often as possible, especially where the engineering supports the idea.

Neither are we even on a parallel course particuarly

They are in fact on parallel courses or they would not be continuing to enter the same hexes move after move. That is the point of maintaining the relative positions. If they were not on parallel courses they would not be in the same hex on the next move of both ships.

You are arguing reality then claiming 2 ships are on a parallel course because they enetered the same hex (like hexes exist in 'reality'), go back to the example, they are patently not on a parallel course in 'reality' it is only the mechanics of hexes that resulted in them being in the same hex again. Use the mini rules if you want and you will see that they clearly pass each other with their relative position changing to match closer to what 3C6d would give and not what MWests rulinig gives.


There is a rule 3C6d that is fairly easy to deconstruct to see how to apply continuing same hex combat. I am playing the game with other people, I expect them, and they probably expect me to play by the rules in the rule book. I don't expect them to start arguing that in 'reality' x, y or z would happen so we are going to ignore the rule.

In reality there is no such thing as a turn break, but I don't expect people to start arguing that they are therefore going to get a portion of their power back each impulse because it represents a more continual power supply better. Sure those arguments make good points of discussion on game design etc, but they are not he rules of the game we are playing.

Mike wrote:Mike is saying that it doesn't matter which ship enters a hex last during a particular sub-pulse. All that matters is their relative positions before one ship entered the same hex as the other.

The other interpretation is saying that the order that the ships move into the same hex during a sub-pulse determines relative position. The corollary is that things such as baseline speed with acceleration and/or deceleration and turn mode can change relative position if ships continue entering the same hex on ensuing sub-pulses.

Does that about have it?

More or less I suppose, except:

Mike has in fact not said what you have said, he in fact EXPLICITLY said the opposite

Does the order in which the ships move into a new hex from a hex they both occupied make any difference?

Very much so.

Ships entering the hex at the 'same time', as per your example. By 'same time' do we mean same impulse or do we take into account the exact order of movement. ...

It means by sub-pulse, not impulse. But, order of movement does matter. So, if, in my last example above, Ship B was moving at a lower base speed than Ship A, or if they were moving the same base speed, but Ship B had the worse turn mode, then only ship A would be moved back.

It should also be noted that the rules never talk about 'relative positions' as far as I can remember. I am not saying anything about determing relative position, I am on about determing shields hit. Of course, they don't need to talk about relative position if you follow 3c6d, as that forces you to work out shields with the ships in 2 different hexes.

Further, 3C6D EXPLICITLY says that the last ship to enter the hex is moved back to its previous hex and you use the positions from there.

Neither does 3c6d say it only applies the first time the enter they same hex, it's a general rule that you apply any time you want to fire (or otherwise need to resolve shields) for someone in the same hex.


MWest has certainly said he interpreted it differently, and I have asked how he went about interpreting it as that might shed light on why 3c6d, as I am seeing it, and his ruling seem so far apart (to the point of contradictory). And, no I don't buy into arguments of 'realism', it is the rules and what they actually say that intererst me as they are what we play by.

I am not saying anything about determing relative position, I am on about determing shields hit

Storeylf, This sentence is a tautology. The relative position decides which shields are hit.

What happens if the two ships start in different hexes is addressed by 3C6D already. The only point of issue is the special case where the two ships are starting in the same hex on a sub-pulse and ending in the same hex on the same sub-pulse. What we are looking at is a grey area not addressed by the rule as written, and that's what Mike's ruling applies to.

Like you I am interested in the rules and what they say. Your interpretation results in situations which are inconsistent with the rest of the rules, as I point out in my edit above. It's inconsistent that you can get on your opponent's six while travelling in a straight line, in the same direction, while staying at range zero but not if you are at any other distance. It's equally inconsistent that (for example) a battleship which is being pursued by a more maneuverable or faster ship can force a situation in which the other ship will be hit by rear-firing heavy weapons. It's inconsistent, therefore it must be wrong.

The only ruling that makes sense to my mind, is that you redetermine shield facing the enemy when the situation changes. If you start in the same hex, both move, and both end in the same hex, then the situation has not changed and the shield facings are not redetermined.

terryoc wrote:Like you I am interested in the rules and what they say. Your interpretation results in situations which are inconsistent with the rest of the rules, as I point out in my edit above. It's inconsistent that you can get on your opponent's six while travelling in a straight line, in the same direction, while staying at range zero but not if you are at any other distance. It's equally inconsistent that (for example) a battleship which is being pursued by a more maneuverable or faster ship can force a situation in which the other ship will be hit by rear-firing heavy weapons. It's inconsistent, therefore it must be wrong.

I'm forced to agree. By a literal reading of the rule if you start a sub pulse with Ship 1 directly behind Ship 2, they both move straight this sub-pulse, and Ship 2 (in the lead) is faster and/or more maneuverable than Ship 1....then Ship 2 ends up behind Ship 1.

That is inconsistent with how out-of-same-hex movement works. Out of same hex, both ships moving on a sub-pulse, both moving the same way, maintains the same exact relative positions regardless of speed/maneuverability.

It doesn't make any sense at all that a faster ship in front, with both ships moving forward, somehow gets behind...you would be doing a 180, going behind, and another 180...or you would be braking which you didn't pay for. Faster in SFB/FC means less maneuverable; it should be harder to shake someone on your tail, not easier.

If you want to go for realism, every time two ships enter the same hex you could make a small 7 hex off board thing and invent rules for how ships can move and slip around these in a turn independent of their true movement. Maybe they can spend a fractional braking cost to slide back or slip back. Or fractional acceleration to slip/slide forward. Then if they end up in the same hex on the 7-hexer go to another 7-hexer...

terryoc wrote:

I am not saying anything about determing relative position, I am on about determing shields hit

Storeylf, This sentence is a tautology. The relative position decides which shields are hit.

i said that with the following earlier comment by MWest in mind.

Now, note that I am saying their "relative positions" do not change. This is different than "shield facing".

The thread is about shield facing. Hence I am talking about shield facing. That is what the rules talk about, but for those like MWest who like to talk about relative position I am just being clear that I am not specifically discussing that.

What happens if the two ships start in different hexes is addressed by 3C6D already. The only point of issue is the special case where the two ships are starting in the same hex on a sub-pulse and ending in the same hex on the same sub-pulse. What we are looking at is a grey area not addressed by the rule as written, and that's what Mike's ruling applies to.

Which is the point. 3c6d does not say what happen when 2 ships start in different hexes. It says what happens when 2 ships are in the same hex. There is no difference under 3c6d for ships that do or do not start in the same hex. Which part of 3c6d states (or even implies) that it only applies wher you started in different hexes?.

The rule as written handles both situation.

"in the event that the firing ship and the target ship are in the same hex.."

Where does it say "and started in different hexes". If you are currently in the same hex then 3c6d applies.

"... resolve the question of which shield was hit from the position occupied by the last ship to enter the hex on the sub-pulse before it entered that hex"

So move the ship to the position it occupied before entering the hex, but only the last ship. Then resolve the shield from there.

As noted already, it has been confimed by MWest multiple times that same time does not mean 2 ships with different move orders, hence the extra bit in brackets about moving same time only applies to simultaneous movement.

Like you I am interested in the rules and what they say.
Your interpretation results in situations which are inconsistent with the rest of the rules, as I point out in my edit above. It's inconsistent that you can get on your opponent's six while travelling in a straight line, in the same direction, while staying at range zero but not if you are at any other distance.

So what are you interested in, the rule as written or consistency based on what you think would happen in reality in some (and only some) situations. MWests ruling is inconsistent with other 'reality' scenarios, ergo it must also be wrong. But that is irrelevant to the rule. Its a game based on rules as written not reality. It is inconsistent that I can cycle my weapons in 1 impulse if I fire on impulse 8, but not at any other time. There are many things about FedCom that are not consistent with reality, that doesn't mean we just throw away the rules and make up something that we think is more real, even more so if in fact you are only making it more real for a narrow set of 'reality' conditions, but even less real for another set of 'reality' conditions.

It's equally inconsistent that (for example) a battleship which is being pursued by a more maneuverable or faster ship can force a situation in which the other ship will be hit by rear-firing heavy weapons. It's inconsistent, therefore it must be wrong.

Umm it would also be inconsistent that the more faster more manouverable ship can't change the situation as MWests ruling prevents. Therefore that ruling must be wrong.

The only ruling that makes sense to my mind, is that you redetermine shield facing the enemy when the situation changes. If you start in the same hex, both move, and both end in the same hex, then the situation has not changed and the shield facings are not redetermined.

Only under some conditions.

The only thing that make sense to me is to follow the rule in the rule book. If I wanted some uber real game I wouldn't be playing FedCom.

DirkSJ wrote:

terryoc wrote:Like you I am interested in the rules and what they say. Your interpretation results in situations which are inconsistent with the rest of the rules, as I point out in my edit above. It's inconsistent that you can get on your opponent's six while travelling in a straight line, in the same direction, while staying at range zero but not if you are at any other distance. It's equally inconsistent that (for example) a battleship which is being pursued by a more maneuverable or faster ship can force a situation in which the other ship will be hit by rear-firing heavy weapons. It's inconsistent, therefore it must be wrong.

I'm forced to agree. By a literal reading of the rule if you start a sub pulse with Ship 1 directly behind Ship 2, they both move straight this sub-pulse, and Ship 2 (in the lead) is faster and/or more maneuverable than Ship 1....then Ship 2 ends up behind Ship 1.

Exactly. But so what. Go back to my earlier example I posed. There is no way that Mwests ruling makes any sense if you apply any 'reality' check.

That is inconsistent with how out-of-same-hex movement works. Out of same hex, both ships moving on a sub-pulse, both moving the same way, maintains the same exact relative positions regardless of speed/maneuverability.

It doesn't make any sense at all that a faster ship in front, with both ships moving forward, somehow gets behind...you would be doing a 180, going behind, and another 180...or you would be braking which you didn't pay for. Faster in SFB/FC means less maneuverable; it should be harder to shake someone on your tail, not easier.

A lot of things don't make sense if you start analysing them. Why is same hex combat so inconsistent with other rules. It is dealing with same hex combat other rules are not.

Why is every one focused on 2 ships that move forward together. What if they are not moving forward together. In my mind it beggers belief that 2 ships can come head on into the same hex and that if 1 brakes and reverses they will still be head on, it is very feasible that in the time the braking an reversing occured that the other ship would have shot past the reversing one and they will now be behind each other (and 3c6d allows either to happen rather than nail it). In my earlier example 2 ships coming at each other and remaining in the same hex as a result of opposite side slips are not in any 'reality' concept going to remain in the same relative position, they are sweeping past each other, it is merely the mechancs of hexes and sideslip that kept them in the same hex. If the ships are acclerating and declerating in order to gain the positional advantage then whose to say who may or may not end up in front or behind, the ships have different handling characteristics and may well change speed at different rates forcing the less manouverable ship to lose any such contest.

MWests ruling makes no real sense in any of the above scenarios. 3c6d allows 2 ships to either stay fixed or not depending on captiains decisions or ship handling or move initiative, it may not be uber realistic, but at least it allows such a thing, which clearly would happen in many cases. MWests ruling results in even more 'unrealistic' behaviour in many scenarios in order to make a narrow set of conditions more 'realistic' (dubiously).

Further I'd add that it is not particluarly inconstent with non-same hex manouvering, the ship that is more manouverable or has initiative has a significant effect on shield. Only if the faster/more manouverable ship chooses to remain in the same position will they do so. As you get closer you will be able to take advantage of your move initiative and use slips, turns or decels to affect the relative/shield position that the other ship cannot respond to as he will have already moved.

Just keep zooming in with your map within a hex concept and the same thing may well be happening on a smaller scale such that it has no affect on the fact that our ships are in the hex with the same facing with same speed at the 'normal' level. For 2 ships at the same speed a decel of less than 0.5 (which is still presumably within the same speed we are at at the higher level) will see the other ship gain by 150km per millisecond, which even in a 10000km hex may well be more than enough to get behind the other ship before the other captain spots that you have slowed down.

In 'reality' it takes a couple hundred milliseconds for the captains brain to process the visual and auditory senses coming in and recognise that the other ship had even started to decel. You have to apply serious tecno-babble to even come up with how on earth a living being could make decisions in the time scales that are supposedly in use (or throw away the scales that every one thinks of). Just another good reason to not get hung up on reality and play the rules as they are.

You previously invoked the minis rules.

storeylf wrote:You are arguing reality then claiming 2 ships are on a parallel course because they enetered the same hex (like hexes exist in 'reality'), go back to the example, they are patently not on a parallel course in 'reality' it is only the mechanics of hexes that resulted in them being in the same hex again. Use the mini rules if you want and you will see that they clearly pass each other with their relative position changing to match closer to what 3C6d would give and not what MWests rulinig gives.

This is not true; they do not pass in the latest example at all in mini's rules.

Using mini's rules a Fed going 16+1 is chasing a Klingon going 16. They just go straight ahead. At the start of the impulse they are a bit over 1 inch apart (one hex away). At the end the Fed is right up behind the Klingon within 1 inch (the "same hex").

Next impulse both move forward 2 inches (speed 16) dead ahead. Result: The Fed stays behind the Klingon at exactly the same range.

3C6d read literally would have the Klingon behind the Fed because it moves second with its better turn mode. No turning happened, no accelerating or decelerating happened, the ships quite boringly just flew straight ahead at exactly the same speed...and somehow the Klingon is now shooting at the Fed's rear shield instead of vice versa.

There is some argument that being more maneuverable could let you "slip behind". Ok then.

Followup example:
Same scenario but two Fed CAs one going 8+1, one going 16. They are effectively going the same speed but the 8+1 is more maneuverable as it has the speed 8 turn mode.

The speed 8+1 is "behind" in the same hex at the start of the impulse. They both move forward 2 spaces. 3C6d would put the less maneuverable ship now behind the more maneuverable one for no good reason at all.

DirkSJ stated:

Using mini's rules a Fed going 16+1 is chasing a Klingon going 16. They just go straight ahead. At the start of the impulse they are a bit over 1 inch apart (one hex away). At the end the Fed is right up behind the Klingon within 1 inch (the "same hex").

Next impulse both move forward 2 inches (speed 16) dead ahead. Result: The Fed stays behind the Klingon at exactly the same range.

3C6d read literally would have the Klingon behind the Fed because it moves second with its better turn mode. No turning happened, no accelerating or decelerating happened, the ships quite boringly just flew straight ahead at exactly the same speed...and somehow the Klingon is now shooting at the Fed's rear shield instead of vice versa.

Not a good example. The Fed would still have a better order of precedence in movement for this entire impulse because it was moving 16+1. Acceleration takes precedence over turn mode.

Mike wrote:DirkSJ stated:

Using mini's rules a Fed going 16+1 is chasing a Klingon going 16. They just go straight ahead. At the start of the impulse they are a bit over 1 inch apart (one hex away). At the end the Fed is right up behind the Klingon within 1 inch (the "same hex").

Next impulse both move forward 2 inches (speed 16) dead ahead. Result: The Fed stays behind the Klingon at exactly the same range.

3C6d read literally would have the Klingon behind the Fed because it moves second with its better turn mode. No turning happened, no accelerating or decelerating happened, the ships quite boringly just flew straight ahead at exactly the same speed...and somehow the Klingon is now shooting at the Fed's rear shield instead of vice versa.

Not a good example. The Fed would still have a better order of precedence in movement for this entire impulse because it was moving 16+1. Acceleration takes precedence over turn mode.

No, that was prior impulse, the closing impulse. Current impulse they both just go 16. Acceleration only takes precedence within the impulse of acceleration.

Three observations:

1. This all seems to boil down to whether shield facings (and firing arcs) should be figured based on the last ship to move into a hex of cohabitation by each sub-pulse OR based on their last positions just before they entered the same hex.

2. After reading MJW's posts from this thread and from the older thread, it appears to me that he has made contradictory statements. In one he seems to support the by each sub-pulse method, but in the more recent ones he seems to support the other method.

3. Both methods have merit and can be justified. We just need to know for consistency's sake which one to use in those rare cases when this happens. I think some sort of clarification should be put into the CRUL as well.