Same-hex shield facings

[storeylf]

You previously invoked the minis rules.

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.

The example being referred to in that line of conversation was my earlier example (not the OP) which was not a chase, it was 2 ships coming at each other almost head on into the same hex and then slipping into the same hex but in opposite directions, ceratainly with the mini rules I have, the only way of representing that is that they initially end up about 1 hex apart with the fed in front of the klink and the klink off the fed 6. The next move sees the fed start a shallow turn (nearest to a side slip in min terms) right and the klink start a shallow turn left, they go past each other and end up somewhere on the other side of each other (exactly where a bit harder to say with minis as it much more precise, but probably the fed is now on the klinks 5 and the klink is on the feds 2?). The shields and relative positions have clearly changed and they are still in the 'same hex' .

3c6d doesn't produce the same result as the minis, but neither does the MWests rule. The point is that there is no particular logic (realism wise) to MWests ruling except under very specific scenarios. 3C6D at least allows heading and facing to change, they may not be uber realistic (as i've said before), but the rule is simple enough as is and it is no less realsitic than the new ruling, ther is probably no rule here that can realsitically handle the situation for other than a very narrow range of scenarios. It also adds a level of tactical thought as ships jockey for position with accle/decels etc, which IMO is always good. As a bonus it is resolved at the instant it is needed with no to keep track of things potentially over several moves (a point also consistent with FedComs ideal of reducing book keeping).

[DirkSJ]

The fact that it came up three times and the amount of discussion around it each time implies to me a need for an official SVC ruling and an formal written rule update/clarification in a Communique.

[pmiller13]

Part of the problem here Storyelf is that you keep misquoting the (3C6d) rule. For clarity I am going to type the entire rule here:

(3C6d) Same Hex: In the event that the firing ship and target ship are in the same hex, resolve the question of "which shield was hit" from the position occupied by the last shp to enter the hex on the sub-pulse before it entered that hex. (If both entered at the same time, judge them from these previous hexes.)

It’s the part about both entering at the same time that becomes very important. Now you mentioned earlier that Mike West had ruled that ships with different Turn Modes but same speed would be considered to have entered a hex at different 'times' but I would like to see that ruling. Because by the (3C6d) wording ships entering a hex during the same sub-pulse at the same speed would in fact be entering at the same time and so you would have to move both ships back to the hex they were at previously. In the example we are talking about this would put both ships back 1 hex and still in the same hex. We could then apply (3C6d) again in a recursive loop fashion until we reach a point where both ships are not in fact not in the same hex. In other words move them back to a point before they ever both entered the same hex and use that previous original relative position. Thus (3C6d) is not changed by Mike West’s ruling it simply has to be applied recursively in order to get the result.

However bottom line of applying (3C6d) recursively is that Mike West's ruling makes perfect sense according to (3C6d) and makes perfect sense in that you don't get into any of the wierd situations where a faster ship some how manages to get behind and stay behind a slower ship.

[storeylf]

The fact that it came up three times and the amount of discussion around it each time implies to me a need for an official SVC ruling and an formal written rule update/clarification in a Communique.

I'm surprised it is not in the RRB given MWest has said it was one of his first rulings, which I assume means made quite a long time ago.

[storeylf]

Part of the problem here Storyelf is that you keep misquoting the (3C6d) rule. For clarity I am going to type the entire rule here:

(3C6d) Same Hex: In the event that the firing ship and target ship are in the same hex, resolve the question of "which shield was hit" from the position occupied by the last shp to enter the hex on the sub-pulse before it entered that hex. (If both entered at the same time, judge them from these previous hexes.)

It’s the part about both entering at the same time that becomes very important. Now you mentioned earlier that Mike West had ruled that ships with different Turn Modes but same speed would be considered to have entered a hex at different 'times' but I would like to see that ruling. Because by the (3C6d) wording ships entering a hex during the same sub-pulse at the same speed would in fact be entering at the same time and so you would have to move both ships back to the hex they were at previously. In the example we are talking about this would put both ships back 1 hex and still in the same hex. We could then apply (3C6d) again in a recursive loop fashion until we reach a point where both ships are not in fact not in the same hex. In other words move them back to a point before they ever both entered the same hex and use that previous original relative position. Thus (3C6d) is not changed by Mike West’s ruling it simply has to be applied recursively in order to get the result.

However bottom line of applying (3C6d) recursively is that Mike West's ruling makes perfect sense according to (3C6d) and makes perfect sense in that you don't get into any of the wierd situations where a faster ship some how manages to get behind and stay behind a slower ship.

I apologise if you think I have been mis quoting rule, I haven't that I am aware of. MWest has, as I have quoted several times, said that same time does not equate to ships moving same subpulse but different order. Hence, I have gone to some pains several times to have ruled out the same time thing as applying only to simultaneous movement with an explanation based on those quotes. MWest himself linked to the previous thread that states that (twice I believe) if you wish to follow it up. Neither would I actually copy the quotes from those statements in 'quote' style if he hadn't as he would no doubt point out that I was lying other wise.

I have even made it clear (on a couple of occasions) that the same time bit was the one thing I saw that could result in MWests ruling, but given he has stated multiple times that same time does not mean what you say then it can't be that can it.

[storeylf]

Just pondering a couple of other scenarios that result in staying in the same hex, and realised there is in fact one scenario that happens, and seems to make good tactical sense, but is now utter suicide.

Ships enter hex head on, they are both on shield 1 and facing each other. Next sub pulse the slower or less manouverable one moves ahead. The second ship now HETs and comes back in behind the first - bam centerlined hapless prey on his rear shields.

Except not now. Now you are considered to have made the cardinal sin of HETing in front of the prey and moving ahead of him, it is you who is about to get royally shafted. The fact that you as the captain was specifcally not doing that isn't relevant.

[Kang]

Where this all came from is that I am designing a scenario where it begins with the two ships in very close proximity. I hope to have it published sometime

I wanted the clarification because I wanted to rule on whether or not to let the ships start in the same hex, or at least for them to get into the same hex on the first impulse. Then it would be a question of, all other points as in the original example, how long the state of affairs would last, i.e. could the frigate just sit there and pound away at the cruiser's same shield every impulse?

This is Mike's 'rare case' from his point no.3 and the situation would be as in his point 1 - entered the same hex and then stayed together for a number of impulses.

[pmiller13]

Just pondering a couple of other scenarios that result in staying in the same hex, and realised there is in fact one scenario that happens, and seems to make good tactical sense, but is now utter suicide.

Ships enter hex head on, they are both on shield 1 and facing each other. Next sub pulse the slower or less manouverable one moves ahead. The second ship now HETs and comes back in behind the first - bam centerlined hapless prey on his rear shields.

Except not now. Now you are considered to have made the cardinal sin of HETing in front of the prey and moving ahead of him, it is you who is about to get royally shafted. The fact that you as the captain was specifcally not doing that isn't relevant.

The problem with this example (and many others) is that it ignores the logical conclusion that the ship that wants to be behind the other one can simply let the other ship move out of its hex on 1 sub-pulse then on the next sub-pulse accelerate, make the het and then move into the same hex now behind the other ship. There are ways to do exactly what the captain of the ship wants to do without causing confusion and looking for loopholes in the rules. Also this situation is very different than the initial situation presented in this thread. In this situation it is obvious that if neither captain does anything the two ships are going to sail past each other and out the other side of the hex. In this example with out needing to resort to the rolls if ship one moves forward and ship two HETs and comes into his hex it would be obvious that he is now behind ship one shield 1 to shield 4. The rule (3C6d) is there to help one determine firing arcs and shield hit when it is not obvious otherwise what they are, in this case to me it does seem obvious.

[Mike]

A player cannot simply decide to accelerate on any sub-pulse they want to. Acceleration can only occur once per impulse and then at the start before sub-pulse 1 begins. Deceleration is a different issue...it can occur before any sub-pulse.

[Mike]

On April 23, 2009 at 6:36am, MJWest stated:

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. In that case, the final ship facing would match the first two examples.

See the entire thread here:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... c&start=15

From this explanation, the ruling was that order of movement by sub-pulse does matter. So wouldn't both moving from one same hex into another same hex be done the same way?

[pmiller13]

I was reading that topic to see if I could find where Mwest made that ruling. At first it made no sense to me as logically the faster ship would fly right past the slower ship and end up in front of him. However the faster ship is going to do exactly that and will end up in a different hex unless he then spends extra energy to decel and stay in he same hex so it kind of makes sense. I still do not see what all the trouble is about as the answer to which weapons can fire and what shields hit seems pretty obvious to me.

[storeylf]

The problem with this example (and many others) is that it ignores the logical conclusion that the ship that wants to be behind the other one can simply let the other ship move out of its hex on 1 sub-pulse then on the next sub-pulse accelerate, make the het and then move into the same hex now behind the other ship. There are ways to do exactly what the captain of the ship wants to do without causing confusion and looking for loopholes in the rules. Also this situation is very different than the initial situation presented in this thread.

Sorry but that really doesn't make sense.

The fact that I could have spent a sub-pulse apart is not relevant. I could have done X, Y or Z, that is not what we are discussing, it doesn't alter the fact that 3c6d as written handles situations like the above just fine, and other previoulsy noted scenarios reasonably, yet the newer ruling doesn't.

The only reason I can see being put forward so far (by people other than MWest) for MWests ruling is 'realism'. However it is only realism in a very narrow band of scenarios. In any other scenario it makes things even more unrealsitic. That, apart from it being contradictory to the rule, just seems bizarre - "we like realism even when it makes things less realistic."

I am not looking for or exploiting rule loop holes, I am applying the rule exactly as it appears to me in the rule book. Though I am still waiting to see if mWests will respond to why he made that ruling. maybe he has an explanation based on the rule that will persuade me 3c6d isn't what I was thinking. He has already noted that he interpreted it differently, but without saying which bit or how etc.

Why would it matter that this scenario or the others are not the OP. The OP was on example of the question being asked. 3c6d or MWests ruling aren't specific to the OP, they are both general rules that would be applied in any such scenario, it is perfectly valid to raise those other scenarios. To suggest, as it comes over you are suggesting, that a ruling should be made on the basis of one scenario without considering other scenarios it would catch is just plain sloppy.


3c6d still allows for ships that are moving the same speed or have no intiative edge to remain locked in relative position when moving ahead together. It also allows ships with different speeds or initiative to affect the situation as I would anticipate captains would be trying to do on a sub-hex level. It's no means perfect or neccessarily accurate (it is just a hex based game), as I have noted a couple of times, but it at least allows a change of position to occur each seperate sub-pulse, based on the angles the ships approached, or changes in speed, or HETs to follow back in behind etc. It gives a simplistic broad brush 'feel' for what is happening on a sub hex level without getting bogged down in actually trying to resolve it uber accurately. MWests ruling doesn't, unless you happen to be in a very specific scenario.

In this situation it is obvious that if neither captain does anything the two ships are going to sail past each other and out the other side of the hex. In this example with out needing to resort to the rolls if ship one moves forward and ship two HETs and comes into his hex it would be obvious that he is now behind ship one shield 1 to shield 4. The rule (3C6d) is there to help one determine firing arcs and shield hit when it is not obvious otherwise what they are, in this case to me it does seem obvious.

3c6d is there to determine shields when ships are in the same hex, not when it is not obvious (to whom, you or your opponent?). So am I understanding correct that you don't apply the rules to the game, you discuss 'realism' or your view of 'realism' with your opponent and expect him to accept whatever you think as being 'realistic' as being what happens. Do you explain your interpretation before he commits himself in case he was thinking an actual rule in the rule book applied. Either 3c6d applies in all such cases or MWests ruling applies in all such cases, you can't have your cake and eat it.

[DirkSJ]

I am not looking for or exploiting rule loop holes, I am applying the rule exactly as it appears to me in the rule book. Though I am still waiting to see if mWests will respond to why he made that ruling. maybe he has an explanation based on the rule that will persuade me 3c6d isn't what I was thinking. He has already noted that he interpreted it differently, but without saying which bit or how etc.

I believe his judgment is that if they both enter the same hex on the same sub-pulse this is equivalent to entering at the same time and therefore triggers the parenthetical portion of the rule below.

Sub-pulses and any other impulse procedures are all in fact simultaneous and only arbitrarily have any sort of order within that given time segment. In truth both ships move at the same time, fire at the same time, and everything else at the same time. One can only truly be the "first" or "last" to do something if one does it in time segment X and another in segment X+1.

When you resolve your fire and blow up an enemy phaser, he still gets to fire that phaser. You going first is a convenience. In the case of movement it's a convenience that has some degree of tactical value but really you are moving at the same time.

(3C6d) Same Hex: In the event that the firing ship and target ship are in the same hex, resolve the question of "which shield was hit" from the position occupied by the last shp to enter the hex on the sub-pulse before it entered that hex. (If both entered at the same time, judge them from these previous hexes.)

[storeylf]

I am not looking for or exploiting rule loop holes, I am applying the rule exactly as it appears to me in the rule book. Though I am still waiting to see if mWests will respond to why he made that ruling. maybe he has an explanation based on the rule that will persuade me 3c6d isn't what I was thinking. He has already noted that he interpreted it differently, but without saying which bit or how etc.

I believe his judgment is that if they both enter the same hex on the same sub-pulse this is equivalent to entering at the same time and therefore triggers the parenthetical portion of the rule below.

As has been pointed out a few times, he has explicitly said that is not the case. I believe I originally asked the question once, and so has someone else. That's not to say he hasn't changed his mind?

[pmiller13]

First Storyelf I think the reason we have not seen another response from Mike West is because he has already made his ruling here and making the same ruling over again would be pointless. Also reading the previous thread that was sited the ruling about the ‘relative position’ not changing unless the ships spend at least 1 sun-pulse in separate hexes was also covered in that previous thread.

The only reason I can see being put forward so far (by people other than MWest) for MWests ruling is 'realism'. However it is only realism in a very narrow band of scenarios. In any other scenario it makes things even more unrealsitic. That, apart from it being contradictory to the rule, just seems bizarre - "we like realism even when it makes things less realistic."

You are saying here that the examples some of us have put forward for reasons why the rule should be interpreted one way (a way that differs from your opinion) are only a very few narrow examples. But the exact opposite is true as well. The examples you have put forward showing why the rule should be interpreted the way you believe it should be are also very narrow examples. The fact is that there are always going to be examples that can be shown that make the rule not make sense. This comes from the fact that we are constrained to the hex map rather than a true free form flight plan (i.e. the miniature rules which do not need a rule such as this). To me the idea that the relative position of the two ships is not going to change makes sense. I am however open, during the game, to considering cases where I would have to say they would change. For example if I was nose to nose in a Fed CA facing a Klink D7 in the same hex and as I move out the back of the hex the D7 pulled a HET and pulled in behind me and into the same hex I was in I would say that in fact he was behind me facing my #4 shield with his #1 shield (assuming of course he pulled a 180) because that is very plainly his intent and since he gets to move after me (assuming of course that is the case) he has the ability and the option to do so. I would not reach for the rulebook and try to come up with some rule that would say something different. The idea being that it’s a game. I win some and I loose some, the primary idea is to have fun. I cannot off the top of my head ever remember a time when I have needed to invoke this particular rule to figure out what was in arc or what shield was hit. Now I have been playing SFB and many other wargames for 25+ years and I do remember using the rules in SFB a number of times to figure what shield was hit, but again not for same hex combat only for combat on the hex spine as SFB is very complex as I am sure you are aware in that particular instance. My point being with all this is that common sense should be able to settle most of these disputes if you just imagine or draw out what is going on. This is what I meant by realism, not necessarily anything about this rule being any more realistic then another interpretation. However I still think something has to change or act in order for that ‘relative position’ to change. In my CA/D7 example it was the D7 paying for a HET and already having the ability to move after me. In the example sited at the being of this thread however the 2nd ship is not doing anything extra to be able to change that ‘relative position’ and so therefore there is not change.

3c6d is there to determine shields when ships are in the same hex, not when it is not obvious (to whom, you or your opponent?). So am I understanding correct that you don't apply the rules to the game, you discuss 'realism' or your view of 'realism' with your opponent and expect him to accept whatever you think as being 'realistic' as being what happens. Do you explain your interpretation before he commits himself in case he was thinking an actual rule in the rule book applied. Either 3c6d applies in all such cases or MWests ruling applies in all such cases, you can't have your cake and eat it.

I am not the one still arguing for a change after the ruling has been given, not once but multiple times. I do apply the rules. If a question comes up and the rules do not seem to perfectly cover the situation I discuss with my opponent what he thought and I tell him what I think. See above for how I handle things. If it seems to make logical sense I allow it even if it gets my tail shot off.