Not everyone has been confrontational; SVC and I appreciate that.
I just want to keep this on a constructive level and give you an avenue to make the improvements in wording that will achieve your goal and our goal: the best rulebook for our players to use.
Jean
WebMom
Die roll modifiers conundrum
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
1. Those of us that were not privy to this chain of events really have no warning that we are getting an "as is" unfinished product. I never looked at these forums until after I purchased the RR, and the rear of the book includes the line, "This is a compliled, complete, and updated rulebook for Federation Commander and works with all products for that game system." This line suggests to me that what you state (that the product was not intended to be a finished product) was not the goal of the product but instead what it has been accepted as when it failed to meet the description given.Dal Downing wrote: There is a Rulebook in the office with all the clarifications noted and examples noted and WE said could you please publish this product because we would buy it as it is. The Refrence Rule Book is not a New Edition like AD&D from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition but what a Publishing of 2nd Edition as it would look if you went through it and added all the different Source Books and did line item corrections or clarifacation. The Problem it seems people are having is they are trying to treat the Refrenced Rulebook as a New Edition, which it is not, instead of looking at as Edition 1 revsion index 5.
2. If it is not a new edition, it should not state that it is such. "Revised 5th Printing" or something similar would have been better.
Last edited by HappyDaze on Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's pretty much where I am. I only have ever played with the Fifth Edition rules. I don't know what the earlier editions were like - although I am lead to understand that they were pretty much the same with the starred additions and a few lines of text removed. While the rules seem serviceable enough to play with if your group is willing to shrug and table-rule at times, the need for such table-rulings seems sloppy for a fifth edition.storeylf wrote:The problem with producing stuff that some people ask for is that you satisfy those people but leave others who are not in on that conversation confused or annoyed that they didn't get what they thought they were buying.
I am treating it as the rule book, because it is. I am not treating as a new edition or new version, I am just reading it as the rule book, just as any new players buying the game would have no chioce to read it as the rule book.
The text I quoted from the rear of the product:Jean wrote:We updated some language, turned some phrases into sentences, tried to do a bit of smoothing out of the text, but this is the reference rulebook that our customers wanted, not a master rulebook. It contains rules, but no scenarios, background, or ship information.
This is a compiled, complete and updated rulebook for Federation Commander and works with all products for that game system.
How would this differ meaningfully from the expectations for a hypothetical master rulebook?
I hate to mention another company’s product on this forum but HappyDaze (or really any of you out there reading this) have you ever play Warhammer or Warhammer 40k or just read their rules? Right in their rulebooks they admit that their rules can not possibly cover every contingency that may come up on the table. They suggest having a quick reasonable discussion, limiting the time so that it does not destroy the game, if a consensus cannot be reached you simply role a dice with the high roller winning and his interpretation of the rule standing till the end of the game. At the end of the game when passions are cooler have the discussion again and figure out what to do in the future. That is exactly what this forum is for. I have been playing War games (both board and miniature) for 30 + years. In all that time the only rule sets I have ever seen that did not have wholes in them were extremely short, ten to fifteen page rule books, nothing like the complexity of Federation Commander. Would we all have liked a perfect product that did not have any errors? Yes and we would have liked Jean to have her wings to. The credible suggestion is to let SVC and the gang get past Origins and get the CRUL started going again.
P.S. I would have REALY liked to have seen Jean with the wings.
P.S. I would have REALY liked to have seen Jean with the wings.
OK guys, I've asked you nicely to provide constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. The majority of what has been posted here since my last post is not very constructive and I don't see a lot of specific suggestions for Mike West. In fact, I don't see any specific suggestions for improvements.
The description on the back states: Fully updated: All of the updates, changes, adjustments, additions ... everything. Yes, it was updated. Yes, it included the complete CRUL. Yes, it has ALL of the rules. Yes, it was revised, and I know how much we revised it because I was on the phone for hours with SVC as we made changes.
Are they all of the changes that some of you want? Obviously not. Are some of you complaining instead of making it better? The answer seems to be as normal, some folks delight in complaining. Some of you, I feel sure have every plan to help and are probably working behind the scenes with Mike.
HappyDaze, you need to offer something constructive to the conversation the next time you post in this topic. You have suggestions about how to do so above. I recommend very, very strongly that you follow those suggestions. I have had to spend more time on this Forum responding to you in the past few days than I have had to spend down here in months. That is not a distinction that most of our customers desire to attain.
I have every expectation that when the time is appropriate, we'll gather the Federation Commander Team and do the same thing we did for Federation & Empire this year and issue a completely reworked and integrated rewrite of the rulebook. We don't do that every few years because that takes a significant commitment of time from every staff member. Right now, that significant effort is going to getting out a new product for everyone to enjoy. That product required a huge time commitment in playtesting, game design, and rule writing so that the product is accessible to all.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have just spent a good amount of time responding to this topic instead of proofreading and editing. I need to get back to doing that.
Jean
WebMom
The description on the back states: Fully updated: All of the updates, changes, adjustments, additions ... everything. Yes, it was updated. Yes, it included the complete CRUL. Yes, it has ALL of the rules. Yes, it was revised, and I know how much we revised it because I was on the phone for hours with SVC as we made changes.
Are they all of the changes that some of you want? Obviously not. Are some of you complaining instead of making it better? The answer seems to be as normal, some folks delight in complaining. Some of you, I feel sure have every plan to help and are probably working behind the scenes with Mike.
HappyDaze, you need to offer something constructive to the conversation the next time you post in this topic. You have suggestions about how to do so above. I recommend very, very strongly that you follow those suggestions. I have had to spend more time on this Forum responding to you in the past few days than I have had to spend down here in months. That is not a distinction that most of our customers desire to attain.
I have every expectation that when the time is appropriate, we'll gather the Federation Commander Team and do the same thing we did for Federation & Empire this year and issue a completely reworked and integrated rewrite of the rulebook. We don't do that every few years because that takes a significant commitment of time from every staff member. Right now, that significant effort is going to getting out a new product for everyone to enjoy. That product required a huge time commitment in playtesting, game design, and rule writing so that the product is accessible to all.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have just spent a good amount of time responding to this topic instead of proofreading and editing. I need to get back to doing that.
Jean
WebMom
-
Savedfromwhat
- Commander
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:38 pm
Happy daze, the rules for the ion cannon were specifically stated to be playtest rules that were added to the 5th edition as a preview.
Also if you changed the photon table then you would change the rate at which photons miss with a die roll shift. You see photons auto-hit at range 0 even with a shift of 1, you need a shift of 2 to cause a 6 to be a miss.
Also if you changed the photon table then you would change the rate at which photons miss with a die roll shift. You see photons auto-hit at range 0 even with a shift of 1, you need a shift of 2 to cause a 6 to be a miss.
They are contradictory.HappyDaze wrote:Since I don't see it in the CRUL, and since War & Peace is coming out soon, let me add this one:
(4R2b) You can hold an overloaded (4R3) ion cannon for two points per turn.
(4R3a) You can add this overload energy only at the instant of firing.
To me, these seem contradictory.
The ion cannon rules in the RRB are labelled "PLAYTEST". As such, they may or may not have some minor issues. This is one of them. (The damage chart is, unfortunately, another.) I am sure both will be fixed when W&P is published.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
HappyDaze,
Let me cut to the chase: What is your endgame?
You claim to love the game, yet all you have done is rip the company and its products. You have not yet gone away angry after Jean's admonishments. (Which is a good thing.) The person who can most address things (Steve) has even weighed in. The stance of ADB is clear. So, what do you want?
Let me cut to the chase: What is your endgame?
You claim to love the game, yet all you have done is rip the company and its products. You have not yet gone away angry after Jean's admonishments. (Which is a good thing.) The person who can most address things (Steve) has even weighed in. The stance of ADB is clear. So, what do you want?
Federation Commander Answer Guy
Cool idea, but no.Savedfromwhat wrote:Also if you changed the photon table then you would change the rate at which photons miss with a die roll shift. You see photons auto-hit at range 0 even with a shift of 1, you need a shift of 2 to cause a 6 to be a miss.
If you roll a six at range 0 or range 1 with a shift of 1, you miss at either range. "Hit/miss" weapons (e.g. photons, disruptors, plasma bolts) do not do the column shift thing. Only "range of effect" weapons (e.g. phasers, fusions) will shift columns.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
It is my hope that they are indeed fixed when W&P is in print. I was just putting this up in case it had been overlooked.mjwest wrote:They are contradictory.HappyDaze wrote:Since I don't see it in the CRUL, and since War & Peace is coming out soon, let me add this one:
(4R2b) You can hold an overloaded (4R3) ion cannon for two points per turn.
(4R3a) You can add this overload energy only at the instant of firing.
To me, these seem contradictory.
The ion cannon rules in the RRB are labelled "PLAYTEST". As such, they may or may not have some minor issues. This is one of them. (The damage chart is, unfortunately, another.) I am sure both will be fixed when W&P is published.
So, in other words, the table can be rewritten with a single Range 0-1 entry.mjwest wrote:Cool idea, but no.Savedfromwhat wrote:Also if you changed the photon table then you would change the rate at which photons miss with a die roll shift. You see photons auto-hit at range 0 even with a shift of 1, you need a shift of 2 to cause a 6 to be a miss.
If you roll a six at range 0 or range 1 with a shift of 1, you miss at either range. "Hit/miss" weapons (e.g. photons, disruptors, plasma bolts) do not do the column shift thing. Only "range of effect" weapons (e.g. phasers, fusions) will shift columns.
If you really want to discuss this with me, then please do it by PM. Jean has implied that such discussion in the open is not welcome here (polite or not), and I'm not really inclined to be baited into forcing her hand again.mjwest wrote:HappyDaze,
Let me cut to the chase: What is your endgame?
You claim to love the game, yet all you have done is rip the company and its products. You have not yet gone away angry after Jean's admonishments. (Which is a good thing.) The person who can most address things (Steve) has even weighed in. The stance of ADB is clear. So, what do you want?