Rule (4A4) says that the maximum die roll modifier is +3; however under 'Control Systems' (5A2) it states that the +1 drm for being uncontrolled is in addition to the modifiers in (4A4), which suggeest that the (5A2) mod is over and above the (4A4) 'maximum' rule.
Also, in (4A4), a '6' gets passed on to the next column to the right, whereas in (5A2) a natural '6' remains a '6'.
How then are these two rules operated together, please? Viz:
Which of the 'in addition to' or the 'maximum' statements takes precedence where an uncontrolled ship has other modifiers in effect (stealth, asteroids etc.)?
What happens to a '6' in the case of an uncontrolled ship that also has other modifiers in effect?
Die roll modifiers conundrum
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
Another missed reference in the rules. Ah well.
I believe that (4A4) takes precedence, based on the fact that it was revised last. The references in 5A2 seem to have been missed. (It's something that comes up very rarely in any case.) So the max shift would be +3.
The "six is still a six" means that the die roll doesn't go off the chart. However, in the original version of (4A4), it was noted that if you got to range 0, you couldn't miss with most heavy weapons even if the target was maneuvering evasively, so that got changed to the column shift. I believe that you should apply the column shift in the case of uncontrolled ships.
I'm not Mike West, who is the official rules answer guy.
I believe that (4A4) takes precedence, based on the fact that it was revised last. The references in 5A2 seem to have been missed. (It's something that comes up very rarely in any case.) So the max shift would be +3.
The "six is still a six" means that the die roll doesn't go off the chart. However, in the original version of (4A4), it was noted that if you got to range 0, you couldn't miss with most heavy weapons even if the target was maneuvering evasively, so that got changed to the column shift. I believe that you should apply the column shift in the case of uncontrolled ships.
I'm not Mike West, who is the official rules answer guy.
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
There does seem to be some missed references in the revised rulebook. For hit or miss weapons, photons and disruptors and most heavy weapons, the die roll modifier is added to the die roll and if the modified number, which may be greater than 6, is over the to hit range then you just miss. the column shift is for range of effect weapons like phasers and fusion beams in which case if the modifier takes you over 6 then you shift over that many columns and read the damage on the 6 line.
I don't know if the uncontrolled modifier will push it past the +3 maximum, but it would be a unusual set of conditions that could do that. But i would also say that the (A4A) maximum has precedence.
I don't know if the uncontrolled modifier will push it past the +3 maximum, but it would be a unusual set of conditions that could do that. But i would also say that the (A4A) maximum has precedence.
Guys, you may criticize the company. However, it must be both respectful and polite. The post above was neither.
To remind you what Rule 1 is, this is the text: 1. The most basic rule is to use common sense and be polite; if something is insulting, or hurts the company, you can expect to see it deleted without warning, explanation, or apology. You can ask by Email why we deleted your message, but if we think the reason is obvious and that you are just arguing, we may not reply. Repeated rules violations will result in the suspension of posting privileges. (It is actually a violation of the Forum Rules to discuss, debate, question, or protest the Forum Rules on the Forum itself. You can do this by Email but may not get a reply.) Feel free to disagree with the company management, as long as you can do it politely and respectfully.
HappyDaze, I was asked to deal with the situation. Therefore, I am applying the rules of our more formal BBS to this situation. Three warnings and your account will be suspended for a week. This is the first warning.
As the rule states protesting any action on the Forum or questioning the moderator or admin's decision is done via email, not by posting. Posting a protest or questioning the decision by posting on the Forum will result in another warning.
You may appeal my decision and actions to Steve Cole. I am not perfect and he may have a change of heart.
Jean
WebMom
To remind you what Rule 1 is, this is the text: 1. The most basic rule is to use common sense and be polite; if something is insulting, or hurts the company, you can expect to see it deleted without warning, explanation, or apology. You can ask by Email why we deleted your message, but if we think the reason is obvious and that you are just arguing, we may not reply. Repeated rules violations will result in the suspension of posting privileges. (It is actually a violation of the Forum Rules to discuss, debate, question, or protest the Forum Rules on the Forum itself. You can do this by Email but may not get a reply.) Feel free to disagree with the company management, as long as you can do it politely and respectfully.
HappyDaze, I was asked to deal with the situation. Therefore, I am applying the rules of our more formal BBS to this situation. Three warnings and your account will be suspended for a week. This is the first warning.
As the rule states protesting any action on the Forum or questioning the moderator or admin's decision is done via email, not by posting. Posting a protest or questioning the decision by posting on the Forum will result in another warning.
You may appeal my decision and actions to Steve Cole. I am not perfect and he may have a change of heart.
Jean
WebMom
Thanks Jean. I shall offer no protest regarding your actions, but allow me to rephrase politely: The Fifth Edition Revised Rules are poorly put together and edited, and mistakes of the nature indicated byt the OP are common in them. I would hope to see better from ADB, but it doesn't seem like cleaning up past mistakes is a priority.
-
Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm
Everybody except you seems quite happy with the Reference Rulebook, but if you can site specific examples of issues, Mike West will deal with them in the normal course of affairs, they'll get handled in Communique, and everything in Communique will be handled in the next revision (about three years away).
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
But people still need to write in if they have questions. It doesn't mean they are unhappy with the rulebook; I'm certainly happy with it - I think it's a great product. It's just that sometimes, small inconsistencies are discovered in the 'heat' of battle and then those questions need to be sorted out before the next game.
HappyDays, my question was posted simply to ask the question in the light of a real in-game situation, not to point out the fault. ADB appreciate our input; to illustrate this, please allow me to quote from 'In praise of our Volunteers' on the ADB blog:
"Added to this list are hundreds of others who, during any given month, by Email or BBS or Forum, contribute in some way to the company and its product line. They may report a glitch in an existing product, playtest a product in development, suggest a new product, point out something another company is doing what we may want to take a look at emulating, look up a rules reference for another player, report on somebody who using our property improperly, comment on a posted draft of a new rule, or simply ask a question nobody else ever dared to ask."
That's what we are doing, and we are appreciated for it.
HappyDays, my question was posted simply to ask the question in the light of a real in-game situation, not to point out the fault. ADB appreciate our input; to illustrate this, please allow me to quote from 'In praise of our Volunteers' on the ADB blog:
"Added to this list are hundreds of others who, during any given month, by Email or BBS or Forum, contribute in some way to the company and its product line. They may report a glitch in an existing product, playtest a product in development, suggest a new product, point out something another company is doing what we may want to take a look at emulating, look up a rules reference for another player, report on somebody who using our property improperly, comment on a posted draft of a new rule, or simply ask a question nobody else ever dared to ask."
That's what we are doing, and we are appreciated for it.
-
Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm
We certainly appreciate players who make constructive observations and give good input.
What we do not appreciate are reckless bombthrowers who say something vague like "everything is screwed up" but somehow never manage to cite a rule number and a specific example of a problem.
What we do not appreciate are reckless bombthrowers who say something vague like "everything is screwed up" but somehow never manage to cite a rule number and a specific example of a problem.
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
-
Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm
I have also had this conversation (more than once)...
Player: You should have reorganized the Reference Rulebook.
Me: In what way?
Player: You should have put all of the weapons in a different order (alphabetical, or by the product they were in, or by the empire that used them, or by whether they're hit/miss or range-of-effect, or something.)
Me: Then the rules would not be in numerical order, and it would be harder to find a rule.
Player: Then renumber the rules.
Me: Can you really not see why that's a bad idea?
Player: It's a good idea. I'll have the new rules and they'll be in the order that everybody (i.e., me) thinks they should be.
Player: You should have reorganized the Reference Rulebook.
Me: In what way?
Player: You should have put all of the weapons in a different order (alphabetical, or by the product they were in, or by the empire that used them, or by whether they're hit/miss or range-of-effect, or something.)
Me: Then the rules would not be in numerical order, and it would be harder to find a rule.
Player: Then renumber the rules.
Me: Can you really not see why that's a bad idea?
Player: It's a good idea. I'll have the new rules and they'll be in the order that everybody (i.e., me) thinks they should be.
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Yeah that would be a terrible idea, you are totally right for sticking to your guns. There is an index; it's not terribly hard to find something. Personally I start most lookups on page 1 looking at the index, finding out it's rule section 4F or whatever, and going straight there. It's not hard. It's a good system. Speaking as someone that has literally over 100 different complex boardgames on my shelf I feel myself an expert on game rules in general and this rule organization system is one of the better ones.Steve Cole wrote:I have also had this conversation (more than once)...
Player: You should have reorganized the Reference Rulebook.
Me: In what way?
Player: You should have put all of the weapons in a different order (alphabetical, or by the product they were in, or by the empire that used them, or by whether they're hit/miss or range-of-effect, or something.)
Me: Then the rules would not be in numerical order, and it would be harder to find a rule.
Player: Then renumber the rules.
Me: Can you really not see why that's a bad idea?
Player: It's a good idea. I'll have the new rules and they'll be in the order that everybody (i.e., me) thinks they should be.
Compared to SFB, it's probably not as vitally important for FC that the rules work like this...and the rule organization system IS considered archaic by today's rulebook standards. But given that FC is a spiritual successor to SFB it makes sense to follow this similar format. Renumbering rules should NEVER be done. Then all sorts of disparate products that try to reference each other are all out of sync and wrong. That would be terrible.
So I guess in summary, while the organization is not really "keeping up with the times" for current gen games and may be a barrier to some new players, I think the system is a good one. It allows for easy rules expansion and easy cross referencing. I entirely agree with you; never reorder or renumber rules. That would be a tragedy.
-
Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm