Federation Commander

Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this, but it seemed appropriate to me...

First and foremost, I realize that the likelihood of my proposal being worked into the FC system is very low. One of the main points that stands in favor of FC and of its parent, SFB: Captain's Edition, is that the rules may be added to, but they are very unlikely to change.

That said, perhaps the following could be included as an optional rule in FC.

Doubtless, anybody who reads these forums, or has played with anything from Romulan Border, is aware that the cloaking device serves as something of a joke against any enemy with significant seeking weapons strength. Of course, the Kzinti aren't exactly historical enemies of the Romulans, so on the basis of drones, this isn't something worth addressing. But, what about the long standing rivalry of Romulus with the Gorn? With an enduring rival who heavily arms their ships with seeking weapons, wouldn't the Romulans have developed their defenses to account for this threat?

Based on the rules in SFB for retaining a lock-on, I worked on the lock-on retention equation based on what my experience has shown to be an average combat situation.

The house rule that my gaming group and I employ is as follows: based on the above mentioned equation (no, I can't cite rule number, at the moment, but its in the G13 section of the SFB book, somewhere...), I came up with a lock-on retention roll of 5+. When the cloaking ship completes fade-out, if a ship has drones in flight targeted on the cloaker, roll one die; on a 5+, the drones seek the target, and everything proceeds as described in the Rev. 5 Reference Rulebook. (I can only assume Rev. 6 describes the same rules). On a 1-4, the ship loses lock-on, and the drones go inert and are removed from play. One die roll, and that's that. For the sake of simplicity, I'd be tempted to do the same with the plasmas, but, as they are self-guided, a case could be made, also, for rolling one die per plasma. (We've not played a lot of plasma-vs.-plasma battles, so we haven't really tested this out.)

To me, this makes the cloak a lot more worth the BPV you pay for it, but, again, I don't expect ADB to change their games on the basis of my preference.

Seems like a neat house rule at cursory glance.

FC doesn't really have optional rules, and we really do not encourage optional or house rules as they just confuse conversations between people who use them and people who don't.

If there is a NEED to change something, we change it. Doesn't happen much in FC, but it has happened, such as the recent change to PC firing intervals.

I am going to make it a point not to comment on this one as I don't want to encourage or discourage conversation. (I actually didn't read it that closely.) The point being that if the idea has merit, traction, and widespread support, it rises to the point of the staff handing me a white paper saying "you need to do this".

Totally understood, Steve. I only posted this as I've seen a lot of complaints about the cloak, namely that a lot of people didn't think it even worth using, so I thought this might help recapture some of the old cloak flavor for them. As I said in the original post, I didn't have any intention or expectation of changing your game, which is a great game, by the way.

I'll take your comments on the house rule issue as an indication that I shouldn't start posting any of my ideas about X-ships or anything like that for FC. (Joking, of course; I haven't really given the X-ships any serious thought...)

That said, anyone who likes this rule idea, have fun with it.

The only real problem I see with 'house rules' is that if you aren't careful, you may go to a tournament, or simply play against somebody outside your normal group, and forget that you are not playing the standard rule.

SeanDavis wrote:Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this, but it seemed appropriate to me...

First and foremost, I realize that the likelihood of my proposal being worked into the FC system is very low. One of the main points that stands in favor of FC and of its parent, SFB: Captain's Edition, is that the rules may be added to, but they are very unlikely to change.

That said, perhaps the following could be included as an optional rule in FC.

Doubtless, anybody who reads these forums, or has played with anything from Romulan Border, is aware that the cloaking device serves as something of a joke against any enemy with significant seeking weapons strength. Of course, the Kzinti aren't exactly historical enemies of the Romulans, so on the basis of drones, this isn't something worth addressing. But, what about the long standing rivalry of Romulus with the Gorn? With an enduring rival who heavily arms their ships with seeking weapons, wouldn't the Romulans have developed their defenses to account for this threat?

Based on the rules in SFB for retaining a lock-on, I worked on the lock-on retention equation based on what my experience has shown to be an average combat situation.

The house rule that my gaming group and I employ is as follows: based on the above mentioned equation (no, I can't cite rule number, at the moment, but its in the G13 section of the SFB book, somewhere...), I came up with a lock-on retention roll of 5+. When the cloaking ship completes fade-out, if a ship has drones in flight targeted on the cloaker, roll one die; on a 5+, the drones seek the target, and everything proceeds as described in the Rev. 5 Reference Rulebook. (I can only assume Rev. 6 describes the same rules). On a 1-4, the ship loses lock-on, and the drones go inert and are removed from play. One die roll, and that's that. For the sake of simplicity, I'd be tempted to do the same with the plasmas, but, as they are self-guided, a case could be made, also, for rolling one die per plasma. (We've not played a lot of plasma-vs.-plasma battles, so we haven't really tested this out.)

To me, this makes the cloak a lot more worth the BPV you pay for it, but, again, I don't expect ADB to change their games on the basis of my preference.

I'm not sure about this specific rule proposal but I will say this:

I know that FC and SFB are different games, but in SFB drones were almost no threat to a cloaked ship.

In FC drones on the map will almost always hit the cloaked ship.

This may be by design or it may be unintended and still perfectly well balanced. But it is a big difference.

Ravenhull: I live in the middle of nowhere. Not a lot of gamers, so I doubt if I'll be playing outside of my gaming group anytime soon, and tournament play is even more unlikely. That said, you do have a very good point. One thing I try to do is always discuss house rules in play with any players, agree on them before starting play, and always play strictly by the official rules with any new players or groups. I don't think house rules should come up at all until all players involved are comfortable with the game system and each other.

As to the differences in SFB and FC, I am thrilled they're different games, but in my case, that's because I find SFB to be rather bloated for my play style. Compare the SFB Master Rulebook and FC Reference Rulebook; 'nuf said. (No criticism to SFB; its great for those who have the time and interest to get into the detail level. Its just not for me.)

However, as SFB was my introduction to the SFU, there are certain elements of my SFB experience I'd like to retain in playing the game I have more fun with, namely, FC. Maybe the cloak mod would be best treated as a Borders of Madness thing, similar to carriers (for those who like them; I don't), maulers, and scouts.

To me, the appeal of FC is the streamlined, elegant system of play. 8 impulses, no lengthy energy allocation to break-up the "flow" of a match, amazingly faster damage allocation, etc. (I could go on for a very long time, but what would be the point?) I guess I'm a natural BoM player, since there are elements of SFB that I like to incorporate into this far more elegant system...

I think this house rule is pretty good, so I am going to review it in depth prior to my next game, then give it, or its replacement, a go, so to speak.

I also concur with Dux Volantis.