Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

LMC Playtest Rulebook feedback/discussion thread

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 11:25 pm    Post subject: LMC Playtest Rulebook feedback/discussion thread Reply with quote

With the FC LMC Playtest Rulebook now available, please post any comments, criticisms, or other thoughts about the file in this thread.

(Any topics on the broader issue of the LMC project for FC should be posted here instead.)
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first post-upload errata line item:

*The "power when undamaged" note on the Maghadim CL Ship Card is listed as 31+4. It should be 33+4 instead. (I must have missed a couple of boxes when doing the initial count.)
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul B
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(4MC3) Arming Charged Particle Cannons

Instead of introducing a redundant mechanic called rolling delay and describing it in two or three paragraphs, would it not be simpler to say the weapon has a hold cost of 3 power at all arming levels? Maybe I missed something but I didn't discern any mechanical difference between a hold cost and rolling delay.


(3MA1) Volley Definition

I feel could also be much simpler. As it stands now, I believe that if a hellbore struck a ship and if in that act two shields were downed in a single hemisphere, with damage transferring to the inner shield, then that damage would be treated as two separate volleys.

However if a subsequent hellbore struck the ship then damage from those two shield facings would strike the inner shield as a single volley?

Also, it's not clear for example if say a ship had shields 6,1 and 2 down but its FH inner shield up, and if a hellbore struck it's #3 shield then how would the damage be resolved? If the weaker shield was one of 3,4 or 5 and if say the second number for the hellbore was 12 damage. Then would the remaining shields all take 4 damage? (before VRF) Or would the rear outer shields each take say 2-3 damage and the FH inner shield would take 7-8 with damage applied for each outer shield facing.

Or more succinctly for purposes of hellbores is the inner shield considered a single shield? Or is it considered essentially three shields and will take 3 times as many damage?

Furthermore, when the Hellbore determiens which is the weakest shield, does it take VRF into account? As VRF essentially makes an outer shield "stronger" than it is on paper. One would assume that the intent of "weakest shield" under (4K3d) is to specify the shield with the least amount of points remaining, regardless of other factors (such as VRF), however that is not expressly stated in the reference rulebook.

If for example a hellbore was striking a Baduvai DW which had lost its rear three shields (3,4,5) but had all other shields fully intact, then by the numbers the weakest shield would be either shield 2 or 6 with 10 points apiece. However when taking into consider VRF the weakest shield would infact be the Rear inner shield with 16 points. As both the #2 and #6 shield can absorb a 20 point volley and the #1 shield can absorb a 28 pt volley while the rear inner shield with no VRF would be downed by 16 points.

(4MB) Mass Drivers

I would advise against having them fire and impact in the defensive fire phase. The rules as they currently are effectively makes the Mass Driver the fastest weapon in the game when this in fact seems contrary to the spirit of the weapon. A weapon which has some properties of a missile should not be firing faster than a phaser.

Two solutions which you may have already considered might be:
1. Fire in one impulse's direct fire step and place on the shield of the enemy ship but resolve the impact on the subsequent impulse against that same shield.

2. Fire in one impulse, leaving a counter in the firing ship's hex and then place on the target's facing shield after it has moved in the subsequent impulse.

Option#2 would be a bit more fiddly but would cause the least amount of confusion.

(4MD2a) Step 1

Does not the phrase "the target (which must be between one and twenty-five hexes away)" preclude the firing of the weapon at range 0? Yet the table lists 0-2 hexes as the first range bracket.

Doesn't the target need to thus be between zero and 25 hexes away?

(4MF2d) Step 4

If a Positron Lancet is fired in lancet mode, what happens if the player taking damage elects to take frame damage in lieu of a final box of any one type? Does this over ride the fact it normally does not damage frame? Or is the player prohibited from using this rule? Or is the damage likewise lost, and the player avoids both the damage point and the loss of his final item of that type (usually a weapon).



That's all for now, haven't yet finished the whole book.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul B wrote:
(4MC3) Arming Charged Particle Cannons

Instead of introducing a redundant mechanic called rolling delay and describing it in two or three paragraphs, would it not be simpler to say the weapon has a hold cost of 3 power at all arming levels? Maybe I missed something but I didn't discern any mechanical difference between a hold cost and rolling delay.


The closest thing to a "rolling delay" that is already in the FC ruleset is (4K2b) under the hellbore rules, but that weapon is less complicated to arm than this one.

That said, I might have to think about how the current CPA rules are written, to see if there is a less wordy way to describe how it is supposed to work.

Quote:

(3MA1) Volley Definition

I feel could also be much simpler. As it stands now, I believe that if a hellbore struck a ship and if in that act two shields were downed in a single hemisphere, with damage transferring to the inner shield, then that damage would be treated as two separate volleys.

However if a subsequent hellbore struck the ship then damage from those two shield facings would strike the inner shield as a single volley?

Also, it's not clear for example if say a ship had shields 6,1 and 2 down but its FH inner shield up, and if a hellbore struck it's #3 shield then how would the damage be resolved? If the weaker shield was one of 3,4 or 5 and if say the second number for the hellbore was 12 damage. Then would the remaining shields all take 4 damage? (before VRF) Or would the rear outer shields each take say 2-3 damage and the FH inner shield would take 7-8 with damage applied for each outer shield facing.

Or more succinctly for purposes of hellbores is the inner shield considered a single shield? Or is it considered essentially three shields and will take 3 times as many damage?

Furthermore, when the Hellbore determiens which is the weakest shield, does it take VRF into account? As VRF essentially makes an outer shield "stronger" than it is on paper. One would assume that the intent of "weakest shield" under (4K3d) is to specify the shield with the least amount of points remaining, regardless of other factors (such as VRF), however that is not expressly stated in the reference rulebook.

If for example a hellbore was striking a Baduvai DW which had lost its rear three shields (3,4,5) but had all other shields fully intact, then by the numbers the weakest shield would be either shield 2 or 6 with 10 points apiece. However when taking into consider VRF the weakest shield would infact be the Rear inner shield with 16 points. As both the #2 and #6 shield can absorb a 20 point volley and the #1 shield can absorb a 28 pt volley while the rear inner shield with no VRF would be downed by 16 points.


I looked up (MD2.212) from SFB Module C5, which describes how hellbore interactions work there - and how I should try to mimic that in FC.

When all six outer shields are up, you decide the "weakest shield" before working out the VRF for each outer shield facing. If one (or more) of the outer shields is down, an inner shield (or rather, the weaker of the two if both are exposed) automatically counts as the "weakest shield", regardless of the strength of the remaining outer shield/s.

Unfortunately, the SFB rules don't quite clarify how one divides up the hellbore damage if more than one outer facing is lost, so I may have to double-check on that before I can say how it's supposed to work over here...

Quote:
(4MB) Mass Drivers

I would advise against having them fire and impact in the defensive fire phase. The rules as they currently are effectively makes the Mass Driver the fastest weapon in the game when this in fact seems contrary to the spirit of the weapon. A weapon which has some properties of a missile should not be firing faster than a phaser.

Two solutions which you may have already considered might be:
1. Fire in one impulse's direct fire step and place on the shield of the enemy ship but resolve the impact on the subsequent impulse against that same shield.

2. Fire in one impulse, leaving a counter in the firing ship's hex and then place on the target's facing shield after it has moved in the subsequent impulse.

Option#2 would be a bit more fiddly but would cause the least amount of confusion.


Mass drivers are intended to be single-impulse weapons in SFB, according to (ME2.31). The problem in FC is that the weapon cannot be directly modelled in the same way, so needs to have a "fudge" one way or another.

In earlier pre-release drafts of this file, I had gone with a rule close to option #1. But I was less than satisfied with this option, so I then went with the idea of having the missiles launch in the standard offensive fire phase, but still allowing the defending ship to use the standard DF options to try and stop them. But even that ends up triggering a host of exceptions and awkward details, since you'd then be essentally having DF spill over into the offensive direct-fire phase.

For the time being, I feel that having the missile launch and impact in the DF phase is the closest I can get to letting the mass driver "work" as intended.

Quote:
(4MD2a) Step 1

Does not the phrase "the target (which must be between one and twenty-five hexes away)" preclude the firing of the weapon at range 0? Yet the table lists 0-2 hexes as the first range bracket.

Doesn't the target need to thus be between zero and 25 hexes away?


In my pre-release drafts, I had retained the minimum ranges for certain weapons as they were in SFB. But I was advised that weapons with "no firing at range 0" (or at range 1) aren't treated as such in FC, so I adjusted the weapon tables to allow them to fire at range zero here. It seems that I missed that change in my final pass.

Please consider the table to be correct; the weapon should be able to fire at range zero in FC.

Quote:
(4MF2d) Step 4

If a Positron Lancet is fired in lancet mode, what happens if the player taking damage elects to take frame damage in lieu of a final box of any one type? Does this over ride the fact it normally does not damage frame? Or is the player prohibited from using this rule? Or is the damage likewise lost, and the player avoids both the damage point and the loss of his final item of that type (usually a weapon).


In this case, I'd personally make a distinction between "lost" hits which happen automatically, and ones which a player can choose to "lose". But on the other hand, I feel that this may be a topic which might have to be vetted from above should we ever get the Uthiki into formal publication.

For what it's worth, I'd say for now that the player should not have the choice of taking frame hits on lancet mode Damage Points that would otherwise protect the final box of any one type.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul B
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nerroth wrote:
Paul B wrote:
(4MC3) Arming Charged Particle Cannons

Instead of introducing a redundant mechanic called rolling delay and describing it in two or three paragraphs, would it not be simpler to say the weapon has a hold cost of 3 power at all arming levels? Maybe I missed something but I didn't discern any mechanical difference between a hold cost and rolling delay.


The closest thing to a "rolling delay" that is already in the FC ruleset is (4K2b) under the hellbore rules, but that weapon is less complicated to arm than this one.

That said, I might have to think about how the current CPA rules are written, to see if there is a less wordy way to describe how it is supposed to work.


I dunno, to me the CPCs are just like plasma torpedos. Demonstrated by the below chart:

-----------Turn1-----Turn2-----Turn3-----Holding
Level 1-----3---------------------------------3
Level 2-----3---------3-----------------------3
Level 3-----3---------3---------3-------------3

Similar to plasma arming on 4J2a of the rulebook.

In the same way that a player may elect to arm a Plasma F in a larger launch OR keep upgrading for a bigger shot, a player may likewise keep a lower level of arming or upgrade to a better shot.

Thus I don't understand the need for new terminology when the procedure for arming the weapon already exists. In fact I consider CPC much more straight-forward than plasma torpedoes as the cost for various torpedoes varies in non-linear ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To go back to the hellbore interaction for a moment, I was clarifying a few details regarding how things work over in SFB.

By and large, LMC warships with active outer shields count as "six-shielded" vessels for the purposes of enveloping damage (which is more prevalent in SFB relative to FC). Therefore, it is the status of the outer shield which determines the "weakest" facing/s. (This also means that the stronger or weaker of the FH and RH inner shields is irrelevant for the purposes of defining the "weakest" shield.)

So, I'll try to mimic that with the following:

*If only one outer shield is down when a HB hits, that facing counts as the "weakest" shield under (4K3d), and the first damage number is applied to whichever inner shield is behind it (while the second number is sub-divided between the other five shields).

*If more than one outer shield is down when a HB hits, the ship owner picks which one as normal (i.e. if both the FH and RH inner shields are now exposed, he is not forced to pick either the stronger or weaker of the two) and scores the first damage number as above against that inner facing. The second damage number is also divided across the five remaining facings, with the Damage Points in the "exposed" facings being applied to the appropriate inner shield (where it may potentially be combined with the first damage number).

This is slightly different than it would be in SFB, but accounts for the choice of picking between "weakest shields" allowed for in FC.

And in both cases, the allocation of Damage Points is done before calculating the VRF (for those outer shield facings which are still up).
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4069
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Federation Commander already has two weapons that use "rolling delay": the hellbore and the tractor-repulsor beam. Therefore, there is plenty of precedent for using it. Perhaps if Gary simply rewords the rule to match those given in (4S2a) and (4K2b)?

I dunno, but it would seem that adding holding would just confuse the issue, not clarify it.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Paul B
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mechanic between the three, Hellbore, CPA and Trac-Repulsor is very different actually.

Hellbores and Tractor Repulsors have two states. Pre-loaded and armed.

1. Pay X amount to load the first turn.

2. On the second turn, pay X amount to load the second turn OR lose the first turn's arming.

3. A the end of the 2nd turn, if the weapon is unfired lose the 2nd turn arming. On the third turn re-pay the 2nd turn arming or lose the first.

Functionally, there is no difference between what takes place in step 3 and having a holding cost equal to the power cost on any one turn. If a hellbore had a per turn cost of 3 + 3 with a holding cost of 3 it would function in an identical manner to the way it does now. Because if on turn 3 the player doesn't pay 3 power he will lose ALL of the power in the weapon in the same way that a player with a Photon torpedo who doesn't pay his holding cost will lose all of the charge for that weapon.

The only reason that it isn't called a Holding Cost is because the designer probably views Holding Costs as being cheaper than arming costs. So if a weapon requires the same amount of energy to maintain its state as it does to arm it, it is no longer a holding cost but this new (in name only) mechanic.

In that sense the only such weapon in the game which cannot be truly held is the Plasma-R since not firing it means restarting the firing sequence from step 1 all over again.

- - - - -

Now with the Charged Particle Accelerators, unlike the Hellbore and Tractor-Repulsor you do not automatically lose the last level of arming in all circumstances.

A weapon at level 1 which pays to maintain level 1 is essentially losing its first level of arming and re-buying it.

A weapon at level 3 which pays to maintain level 3 is essentially losing its third level of arming and re-buying it.

But a weapon at level 2 arming does not lose automatically lose arming status. Rather the player is given the option to upgrade to level 3 and then if they decline to, they lose the last level of arming, at which point they have the option to pay another 3 power to regain it. So in essence three different things are happening in the same energy allocation sequence. In other respects the weapons are the same, pay 3 power per turn for each turn of arming, failure to pay any power results in a loss of power thus far.

- - - - -

"Holding" a weapon in a certain state and "maintaining" a weapon at a certain state are in effect the same idea.

Take two weapons, Weapon A and Weapon B.

They're both fully charged on turn 2 but elect not to fire.
On turn 3 to maintain their armed status during the turn they both need to pay 2 power.

Can you guess what weapon A and B are? Can you guess what that 2 power is spent to perform? Weapon A and B are an Overloaded Photon Torpedo and a TRL. Both are spending 2 power to remain armed, but one is spending 2 points of power to "hold" and one is spending 2 points of power to re-arm its second turn of arming, but the effect is the same so are they any different, really? No.

- - - -

So personally for CPA, I would suggest going with pay 3 power to hold at the current state, or upgrade to the next. And while I was at it I would re-write hellbores and Tractor Repulsors to use the same mechanic of holding costs. Because in essence they are the same mechanic, they've just been written differently probably due to some legacy carry-over from SFB. It's needlessly confusing, the holding cost mechanic already exists for multi-turn weapons, re-purpose the holding mechanic for all such weapons including HB, TRL, TRH and CPAs and turn potentially confusing rules into elegant ones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sebastian380
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 07 Mar 2013
Posts: 147
Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:09 pm    Post subject: Question on the VRF Reply with quote

I'm having trouble understanding how the VRF works as described in 3MB4
Please, can somebody post some examples of this?
Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Say you have an undamaged Eneen NCL, which has 12 outer shield boxes in each facing, and a pair of hemispheric 20-box inner shields behind them. The ship has three batteries, so it can only provide a single point of outer shield reinforcement (as each point of outer shield box reinforcement costs two Energy Points). Inner shields cannot be reinforced.

In the first example, you have an enemy ship landing eight points of "normal" damage in a single outer shield facing (say, #2). This volley has less than 10 Damage Points, so there is no "burn-through". Since the facing outer shield is stronger than the incoming volley strength, you divide the volley in half to get four Damage Points, which are then resolved against the facing outer shield. Since the Eneen captain has chosen not to use reinforcement, outer shield #2 is now down to eight boxes.

In the second example, an incoming volley of twenty-four points of damage strikes the #6 shield. The Eneen chooses to add a single point of reinforcement (costing two Energy Points), bringing the facing shield up to 13 boxes. The tenth Damage Point "burns through" the outer shield, and is marked against the FH inner shield (which is now down to 19 boxes). The remaining 23 Damage Points are reduced by one-half of the outer shield strength (rounded down), i.e. are reduced by 6 down to 17 Damage Points. 13 of these Damage Points are enough to down the #6 outer shield, while the four Damage Points left over are scored on the FH inner shield. Since this technically counts as five Damage Points scored on the facing inner shield in the same volley, the fourth (or rather, fifth) remaining Damage Point "burns through" to score a point of internal damage, while the last three Damage Points are absorbed by the FH inner shield (which is now reduced to 16 boxes).

In the third example, an incoming 8-point volley of shield cracker fire hits the #1 outer shield facing. Since shield crackers (and other such weapons) ignore the VRF, all 8 Damage Points are scored on the facing outer shield, which is now reduced to 4 boxes.

Do those help?
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sebastian380
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 07 Mar 2013
Posts: 147
Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that does help. thank you
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just wanted to note that anyone looking to see how (most of) the playtest FC LMC Ship Cards compare to their SFB counterparts can check out the Module C5 SSD book; which recently went up on W23, DTRPG, and WV (as noted elsewhere on the forum).

I would recommend keeping an eye out for the 2011 C5 errata PDF, not least for the Jumokians (since the number of Marine squads on their playtest Ship Cards are based on their "post-errata" numbers).

EDIT: Now that the C5 rulebook has also been posted online, I would recommend that file also - again, with the 2011 errata (which has been appended to the PDF document) in mind.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdemichele
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 17 Feb 2016
Posts: 27
Location: Western Washington

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a typo under (4MC3a) Arming, on the second column of the PDF, where there is a partial duplication of text:

Code:
(If you do not pay these three Energy Points,
to either increase the Power Level or to maintain
a \"rolling delay\" at the previous Power Level, all
energy in the
(If you do not pay these three Energy Points,
to either increase the Power Level or to maintain
a \"rolling delay\" at the previous Power Level, all
energy in the warhead is lost; the arming cycle
cannot be re-started until the Energy Allocation
Phase of a subsequent turn.)


Edit: Sorry about the code and the backslashes. The forum kept cutting off the selection because of the double quotes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apologies for the oversight. Please delete or ignore the duplicated text.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdemichele
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 17 Feb 2016
Posts: 27
Location: Western Washington

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad I could help. I just picked it up today, so fresh set of eyes and all that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group