ADD / AFD etc.

[malleman]

I can understand the fire once per impulse concept, however, when I get hit with six drones in one impulse, I get to fire back only one time, instead of the three to five times I get in SFB, so I propose to moderate the 3 to 5 times at 4 times due to the sub-pulse system. I view the standing rule as ADD's got screwed twice; once by reduced range (range 3 to range 0) and once by reduced ability (the quantity of fire, due specifically to the range). I am not saying to change when it fires, only the quantity of fire to that of four for each sub-pulse. I think this would also balance the fighter and fighter missile problem for BoM.

Okay, now I am at a loss. I thought that Hod was discussing BoM, even if he was talking about rules that are being play tested.

Mike and I have played with fighters, and I can kind of see his point. That is why I asked you have you played with fighters. I want to know why you disagree with his opinion.

As far as calming down, maybe you should choose your words more carefully instead of trying to talk down to someone like in your statement "Understand?�. I clearly understand what your intention was, unless again you were posting to post, in that case I am sorry I misunderstood you.

[ericphillips]

Then there was a misunderstanding. I hope you understand my point. Sorry.

[ericphillips]

I want to know why you disagree with his opinion.

As for his opinion on how the ADD interacts with BoM fighter: I HAVE NO OPINION.

On his first assertion:

Wanderings of a wondering mind: an ADD can fire every impulse in SFB, but only once every four (4) sub-pulses in FC. Why can they not fire four (4) times every four (4) sub-pulses in FC? Would that not balance the odds to reflect more closely to SFB? Or how could that unbalance FC?

Nothing about fighters until later. As I will reiterate, I feel the game is balanced currently. That was what I said. He brought up fighters that fire drones, if they are in BoM I'll comment then, as I don't have the playtest rules, and my sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped me conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given me clairvoyance enough to playtest something I dont have the playtest for...

LOL

[storeylf]

Wanderings of a wondering mind: an ADD can fire every impulse in SFB, but only once every four (4) sub-pulses in FC. Why can they not fire four (4) times every four (4) sub-pulses in [b/]FC[/b]? Would that not balance the odds to reflect more closely to SFB? Or how could that unbalance FC?

I can understand the fire once per impulse concept, however, when I get hit with six drones in one impulse, I get to fire back only one time, instead of the three to five times I get in SFB, so I propose to moderate the 3 to 5 times at 4 times due to the sub-pulse system. I view the standing rule as ADD's got screwed twice; once by reduced range (range 3 to range 0) and once by reduced ability (the quantity of fire, due specifically to the range). I am not saying to change when it fires, only the quantity of fire to that of four for each sub-pulse.

I think this would also balance the fighter and fighter missile problem for BoM.

Everything up that last part was about FC, the last part was a 'oh, and by the way it would also be useful in BoM. Other post after that started talking about BoM more, and drone firing fighters.

What he said is, IMO, needless baggage in FC, it would unbalance the whole drone mechanics whilst 'solving' a non-existent problem. The only FC fighters are stingers, they don't carry drones. The suggestions that it is limited thinking to only think of stingers is pathetic, I have thought very much about what is down the road that he suggests, and I don't like the destination, hence I will argue not to even start off down there by changing the ADD rules to accomodate where it would end up. That's a personal opinion of the sort of game I like obviously, Just as Hod has his personal opinion of where he would like the game to go, but irrespective of opinion , arguing that you change game 1 in an unbalancing way to accomodate game 2, when it has previoulsy been made clear they are seen as seperate games..., and game 2 doesn't even fully exist yet?!.

As to BoM, I am not against BoM per se. Keep it totally seperate. If BoM introduces everything like drone fighters and fast drones and scatter packs and all that, then it can also introduce extra ADD features, just keep them out of FC. My issue with BoM is, as I said a long time ago, I don't believe the discipline exists to keep BoM stuff out of FC. We already have a FedCom booster with ships that need BoM rules to use properly, and we have an FC Attack product with BoM rules in it (for ships that weren't even in that product!!). Its that sort of creep that I am wary of, it wasn't going to happen but it has.

Life changes, when I was a teen I measured the greatness of a game in direct proportion to how big it was. Longest Day, Europa stuff, Empires in arms, squad leader, Imperium Romanum, Guns of August etc were good games. smaller games that could be played in an hour or so (e.g. SPI folio games) were of use to play against friends to try and introduce them to gaming. Nowadays, with family and other commitments, I want a simplish fast playing game. If it can't be finished in an evening it is of little interest to me.

[Hod K'el]

Problem: I am not trying to argue.

My contention is that we have FC now and no fighters for all the races, so when BoM comes out, we will have fighters for all the races. My experience in playtesting shows devastating power from the addition of fighters, therefore, how is this going to be compensated? Thus the post regarding ADDs and, possibly, AFDs. Or are we going to get something else like T-bombs, or what??? Now remember, BoM, not FC, not SFB, which is to say that BoM does not affect FC, therefore, anything that is, stays as is. (Sort of like Vegas, huh?)

[DirkSJ]

Dirksj--as far as the intent of the race, are you serious? Think about it situations/circumstances will cause evolution. How do you feel about PFs?

They were written as a race that detested fighters and written as a specific counter to Kzinti fighters/drones (which were the only race that had fighters at the time if I remember correctly, and they weren't really fighters yet just glorified shuttles).

Yes, they should have evolved as other races got more and more fighters: with more ESGs and/or more advanced ESG technology that was even better at killing fighters/drones.

My issue with BoM is, as I said a long time ago, I don't believe the discipline exists to keep BoM stuff out of FC. We already have a FedCom booster with ships that need BoM rules to use properly, and we have an FC Attack product with BoM rules in it (for ships that weren't even in that product!!). Its that sort of creep that I am wary of, it wasn't going to happen but it has.

This is my problem as well. Those BoM things have no business being in an FC product. If BoM is BoM and FC is FC they should not be blending. I forsee things getting worse down this line, not better, if SFB is anything to go by.

[wedge_hammersteel]

dirk and storyelf; if you are so dismayed over the future of FC and its "imminent" corruption, perhaps you need to look elsewhere for a game that suits your tastes 100%.

I dont think you'll find one as its appears that you are happiest when you are complaining. You are the smallest minority of players who feel as you do. Most, if not the rest of us have the intelligence to leave out those game elements that we have no interest.

Our group is looking forward to Bom. We most likely will use some of it but not all. Again, its players choice. It will not ruin our experience.

And if there is an element of SFB that my group would like to try in FC but ADB has no plans to ever bring it to FC, we will make up our own house rules and try them out.

[DirkSJ]

I dont think you'll find one as its appears that you are happiest when you are complaining. You are the smallest minority of players who feel as you do.

I can't have an opinion without it being complaining?

Counting up forum users/replies is a terrible way to determine what is and isn't popular. We are a minority of players that post on these forums, yes. That has just about zero relation to being a minority of FC players.

Forum posters are superfans. I would posit superfans are far more likely to like BoM than regular players. If anything I would posit we likely represent the silent majority to whom BoM things appearing in FC products just cause confusion and disappointment as they were expecting FC things in their FC product.

[terryoc]

I'm sure that ADB very well aware of the potentially divisive nature of BoM and will stop them from blending together. It's valid not to want your game 'polluted' with BoM elements. I don't think it will happen, and I don't think the appearance of the minimal scout rules or the Aegis rules in Hydran Attack mean that's going to happen.

The booster with the BoM stuff was IIRC the Franz Joseph ships. That one had to have the Federation Scout in it, because the Federation Scout was in the Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual. That particular Booster is really there to satisfy demand from hardcore Original Series Trek fans who love those ships. It's not FC proper, it's not Borders of Madness, it's not a breath mint. With that published, there had to be some scout rules officially published somewhere. Same deal with Aegis - the rules had to be published officially somewhere because of the escorts in Briefing #1. Not everyone reads Captain's Log or Communique, especially the more casual players. Those players who don't read CL or Communique needed to have it published for them if they wanted to use it. IMO it's pretty easy to ignore, like the Speed 32 drone rules, which IMX never get used.

[storeylf]

dirk and storyelf; if you are so dismayed over the future of FC and its "imminent" corruption, perhaps you need to look elsewhere for a game that suits your tastes 100%.

I dont think you'll find one as its appears that you are happiest when you are complaining. You are the smallest minority of players who feel as you do. Most, if not the rest of us have the intelligence to leave out those game elements that we have no interest.

Our group is looking forward to Bom. We most likely will use some of it but not all. Again, its players choice. It will not ruin our experience.

And if there is an element of SFB that my group would like to try in FC but ADB has no plans to ever bring it to FC, we will make up our own house rules and try them out.

Maybe you should direct a similar post at Hod, he's 'complaining' that ADDs don't act like they did in SFB, if he was so dismayed by what he thought was a lack of balance then maybe he would be better looking else where for a game that suits his taste 100%, oh I don't know, lets say SFB.

Maybe you should re-read my post. I am not bothered about BoM in itself, I accept that there are players like yourself who want FC to become SFB v2. My concern is that despite how ADB have said it will be seperate game (cos not everyone wants SFB v2) it has already crept into FC.

Why is it wrong to argue for what you want, even more so when it happens to be what ADB had said was also the intention. Why are those arguing the opposite not 'complaining'.

If Hod had started by posting by what he since said is what he meant to say we probably wouldn't be having the conversation. The whole conversation started about changing ADDs in FC to handle some drone imbalance that no one else saw, Then it moved to handling some imbalance resulting from another product that hasn't been released, and has been officially stated to be seperate to FC. Then he starts going on about limited thinking of those who don't want to change core FC rules to handle this seperate product, which people may not even buy or play with.

Do you think it is limited thinking to want to keep ADDs in FC the way they are, and leave BoM to handle any balance issues resulting from BoM additions?

Why do you think it is 'complaining' to want to keep ADDs the way they are in FC.

Why do you think it is wrong/complaining to want to keep BoM seperate to FC, which is the stated ADB position on the relationship?

Why do you think it is 'complaining' when some express their opinions?

Why do you think you or Hod are not complaining when you express your opinions?

[Jean]

Gentlemen, please take a deep breath before continuing. I am hearing a lot of frustration and some anger in the tone of some of the posts.

Borders of Madness is apart from Federation Commander. Yes, some rules were contained in Hydran Attack as were counters. No ships in Hydran Attack were affected by the rules; the ships that would have these rules were in the 90 series of Booster Packs. No Federation Commander player was forced to play with Border of Madness rules; none ever will be. What Federation Commander players do around their game table is their business.

We (as a company) cannot issue cards for which there are no printed rules. Hydran Attack is the product that came before the 90 series; it contained rules (and counters) for the future Ship Cards. That's all.

[DirkSJ]

We (as a company) cannot issue cards for which there are no printed rules. Hydran Attack is the product that came before the 90 series; it contained rules (and counters) for the future Ship Cards. That's all.

Wouldn't the Booster #0 model of rules in the booster pack have worked without blending the products?

We are concerned with blending. We are concerned that we are paying for BoM things in our FC products that we didn't ask for. I own Hydran Attack. Given that I was buying an FC product I would have preferred to get FC related counters. Or to have the price lower and have no extra counters.

Page 1 of HA says the counters were included to help justify the price point as retailers like to have consistent prices. Extra SSDs, extra terrain counters, a hex board, or any number of other things that are actually FC products could have served this price justification role.

With written text is always hard to judge intent so let me say there is no anger or frustration in what I wrote above. I can't actually remember the last time I was angry at really anything...it's just not who I am. I state my points, I listen to other's points, and then I agree or disagree. There is no reason to involve emotion at all.

It is simply my opinions about what was done and how I viewed it as a customer and stating that I was disappointed with the decisions made and hope they won't continue.

[Hod K'el]

'like the Speed 32 drone rules, which IMX never get used.'

Oh, oh...except by me? (sniff) Am I the only one? (sniff, sniff) Ever feel like the last man on earth? Okay, enuff about that!

I, for one, don't think that you are complaining, just expressing your motivation. My concern is that no one has answered the question. I have experienced a problem of ships being destroyed at the rate of one per turn when using fighters. What are we going to do to fix this problem? Will the fix be retroactive to FC? (I would think not, but shame on me for not considering such and, thus, the original post.) Will it be applicable to BoM only? (Probably) Will it entail elements from SFB? (Maybe) But let's stay focused.

The only tactic that I have been able to come up with is to get on the right side edge of the board and run with a left echelon. At least I survive longer this way, so does anyone have anything better?

[Dal Downing]

My concern is that no one has answered the question. I have experienced a problem of ships being destroyed at the rate of one per turn when using fighters. What are we going to do to fix this problem? Will the fix be retroactive to FC? (I would think not, but shame on me for not considering such and, thus, the original post.) Will it be applicable to BoM only? (Probably) Will it entail elements from SFB? (Maybe) But let's stay focused.

Hod, plain and simple the answer to a Fighter is a Fighter. If you are a task Force Leader and you are going up aginst a enemy that has fighters and you do not that should scare the absolute crap out of you. Lets say for, BoM purposes only here, That you want to up the ADD fire rate to 4 per Impulse then the Fighters will need to get More Drones and get rid of the 1 Drone in Flight at a time rule. Can anyone say F14D? Now you want to use ADD on the Fighters will they get Chaffs to counter this? Now you want TBombs so I want Megapacks. And you thought the F14Ds were fun. Oh and don't forget to added Plasma Sabots to D Racks or EW Fighters. To which you will want a faster reload on ADD Racks than the 4 Point Repair Rule.

Hod have you guys tried playing SH17 "The Pleiades Turkey Shoot" out of SFB yet? I have and have a hard time keeping the Klingons alive for 6 Rounds but if they can make it that long they tend to start scoring damage.

I have found IMHO that fighters are still quite weak (No Deck Crews=Slow Relaods and no Damage Repair, No Dog Fight Drones, No Chaff Pods, No EWF Pods, Only one Drone in Flight at a time) but I am learning to live with those weakness to avoid a whole host of fixes (Multiple launch ADD, TBombs, Plasma Shotguns, Plasma Sabots, and Scatter Packs) that put me right back to square one.

[terryoc]

I have experienced a problem of ships being destroyed at the rate of one per turn when using fighters.

If this is happening, ADB needs to know. I (strongly) suggest you write up playtest reports of your experiences and send them to ADB. Out of curiosity, which fighters, specifically, are you using?

Your post implies you're using a fixed map. Drones are pretty effective on fixed maps. Fast drones even more so. That may be part of the problem. On a location or floating map, the slow fighters can't keep up with the ships.

Possible solutions: Reduce the number of fighters on carriers in BoM. (Already done for the Hydran Paladin, IIRC.) Reduce the weapon firing rate (done for Stingers). If fighters are in use, the map automatically becomes a location map (already applies to plasma). Add/increase the surcharge for fast drones on fighters.

Also remember that in FC escorts can be taken without carriers (you're limited to two per force).