Sensor proposal

[storeylf]

The "6" for a drone miss couldn't be added to jamming because of how it works in the HA rules. Remember, when jamming with the HA rules, it only affects weapons for that impulse, not the rest of the turn. As such, there is no real way to get the affect for seeking weapons.

Not sure what you mean there - just move declaration to defensive fire (altogether or as an optional choice to offensive fire), any seekers are affected, and the effect lasts the rest of the impulse so it carries into direct fire. Or go as I was suggesting and make the 2 uses seperate options.

On the plus side, the (5S4) Direct-Fire Defense rule can be used for to help a friendly ship, to self-protect, or for offensive jamming of an enemy ship. All three modes provide the same +1 shift. (This makes the jamming more versatile.)

What's this offensive jamming. You can protect a friendly ship from enemy attack, you are saying that should also include your self. Are you meaning a new option to choose an enemy ship that gets a +1 shift on all of its fire for 1 impulse irrespective of targets?

[terryoc]

Like Lee, I don't see any offensive EW function in the (5S) rules as printed in Distant Kingdoms. Is this an addition for the 6th Edition FCRRB?

[mjwest]

Not sure what you mean there - just move declaration to defensive fire (altogether or as an optional choice to offensive fire), any seekers are affected, and the effect lasts the rest of the impulse so it carries into direct fire. Or go as I was suggesting and make the 2 uses seperate options.

The problem is that the rule is structured to only last for a single impulse, and is timed to inflict the greatest impact. If you had to declare use in the defensive fire phase, then you are using it preemptively (giving the enemy the chance to change targets), rather than reactively (after the enemy has declared fire). Declaring in defensive fire dilutes the effect of the jamming.

What's this offensive jamming. You can protect a friendly ship from enemy attack, you are saying that should also include your self. Are you meaning a new option to choose an enemy ship that gets a +1 shift on all of its fire for 1 impulse irrespective of targets?

Yes, that is exactly what offensive jamming is. It is really handy when you are fighting one or two major enemies. Instead of trying to protect multiple targets, you can instead jam an enemy who will cause the most damage. (E.g. fighting an Andromedan; the vast majority of its firepower is in one spot [the mothership]. Jam it rather than protecting specific targets.)

Like Lee, I don't see any offensive EW function in the (5S) rules as printed in Distant Kingdoms. Is this an addition for the 6th Edition FCRRB?

I thought I was clear that it was an addition. Basically, the jamming function can be used in any of those three ways, instead of just one (or two). It gives a little more flexibility without actually making anything more complex.

[storeylf]

The problem is that the rule is structured to only last for a single impulse, and is timed to inflict the greatest impact. If you had to declare use in the defensive fire phase, then you are using it preemptively (giving the enemy the chance to change targets), rather than reactively (after the enemy has declared fire). Declaring in defensive fire dilutes the effect of the jamming.

But jamming a pile of drones is timing it for maximum impact. Greatest impact isn't always during offensive fire for the individual ship you want to target. If you allow the sensor vessel to choose defensive fire or offensive fire then he can choose which has most impact.

Alternativley, you could still add the seeker jamming and use it during the offensive fire phase. But change the sensor to last an impulse rather than the rest of the impulse. Lasting an impulse would mean it is still up for the following defensive fire, so you could plan your seeker jamming just before you expect to get hit.

[Dal Downing]

MJW can't find my copy of HA Rules but I did want to ask if you would consider modifying 5L2 "Orion Stealth Coating" so that Plasma that roll a 6 suffer the 25% strength reduction instead of a clean miss? That has always bothered me that Type Rs just go Poof.

Also MJW can we look at adding the Plasma Reduction function to the Playtest Scout rules from Communique 28.

Now for the Next question at what point in the Defensive Fire Stage would we roll for Scout effects? Before or after ADD and Defensive Phaser Fire? This becomes important when dealing with Plasma. Does Phaser fire reduction occur before or after the -25% Effect?

[terryoc]

Jamming seekers so that they have a 1-in-6 chance of failure seems pretty weak. So weak that I probably would not bother to use it in preference to the guaranteed kill-one-drone-prior-to-impact option. Orion stealth effects are rolled for *after* all defensive fire AFAIK, and if this is consistent with that then it's only going to affect one-sixth of those seekers which leak past defenses, which should not be many at all. My feeling is that the proposal adds complexity without actually being an option that players will use.

[Mike]

That was my take on adding a die roll to sensor-anything. Why add that much complexity?

Remember, FedCom was supposed to be a much simpler and faster game than SFB. Or are we way past talking about FedCom and totally into discussing BoM now?

[terryoc]

For Borders of Madness to be successful it should IMO be kept "as simple as possible, but no simpler", like FC.

[storeylf]

I had assumed any sensor stuff was basically BoM. Whilst HA makes it clear that those rules are not the full BoM rules I didn't see them as proper FC rules either. I don't therefore see an issue with rolling dice, I wouldn't be using sensors at all if I wanted things to be kept that simple.

While I see Terrys issue with missing on a 6 (if done as per orion stealth), I would add that my initial proposal was to affect not just impacted drones, but any drones tracking that target. Seeing how many you jam up front is very useful as you plan your next move. Maybe having the sensor jamming come first, before the ADD point would solve that issue if was only for impacted drones.

Whilst using the 1 sensor per drone may be very useful in very small battles, as I noted up front, it quickly becomes almost useless in larger battles, unlike the direct fire jamming.

I'm not an SFB player, so can't say what SFB did or did not do etc. My comments are purely looking at it from the FC side of the fence. But if as MWest says, the original Comm rules were a direct translation then it appears that they did provide some reasonable seeker defense, especially for the sensor unit itself.

At any rate, my comments can be seen as just some feedback on the way the direct fire/seeker jamming seem to scale very differently. It is not inherently bad that sensor units work like that, but it does affect the way the races/games balance overall when sensors are in use.

I would however add a final note, IF MWest is correct that the comm rules are close to the SFB rules, then a HA style change will affect those races that expect to deal with seekers due to the simple fact that seeker defense was split into a seperate action, but you still only have a limited number of channels. Under the comm rules you could jam for a turn and get both seeker and direct fire jamming on just 1 channel. Under HA style rules you need 1 channel for direct fire, and more channels for seeker jamming. That sounds quite a major balance change if you are coming from SFB (I'm looking at BoM again), it certainly benefits some races a lot more than othes.

[terryoc]

Whilst using the 1 sensor per drone may be very useful in very small battles, as I noted up front, it quickly becomes almost useless in larger battles, unlike the direct fire jamming.

HA rule is about the same as the 5S rules from Captain's Log. 1 channel, 3 attempts with 50% chance to work: 1.5/channel average. Other way is one guaranteed kill. The HA version is, IMO, cleaner.

Roll-a-die-for-impacted is always done after defensive fire, because in SFB when the drone actually blows up you roll to see how much damage it did. In FC, defensive fire comes first since it's assumed that you're shooting it before it blows up.

Scout channels and electronic warfare just aren't that good at seeker defense in SFB. The best way to deal with a seeker in FC or in SFB is to either shoot it down or outmaneuver it.

At any rate, my comments can be seen as just some feedback on the way the direct fire/seeker jamming seem to scale very differently. It is not inherently bad that sensor units work like that, but it does affect the way the races/games balance overall when sensors are in use.

Yes, that's pretty much how it is. Sensors are more effective against DF than seekers.