What is Borders of Madness?

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:59 pm

Ok so riddle me this then....what is it about FC that makes make you want to use its core mechanics instead of SFBs?

WHY is this only a one-way street. why is SFB such a sacred cow and FC is not?

Then answer me WHY if those systems are so desirable, WHY it is unacceptable to bring any of them back into SFB?

Holy cardboard counters, Batman! Now seriously...

This is my take on things. I may be wrong, but this is how I see it.

The SFB game system has been around since the late 1970's. It has grown and developed and its players appreciated the richness of it.

Many players, however, wanted a faster version...a more streamlined version. I'm sure that several ideas for speeding up SFB were sent in or somehow suggested to SVC over the years (I know I sent in my share). Of course, many players did not want to change the basic mechanics and have stayed with it.

Then FedCom came along. It plays faster and is easier to understand than SFB. The bottom line on FedCom is that it seems to be a 21st century reboot of SFB that is more appealing to players these days (though SVC has said that ADB's SFB sales continue to do very well).

As for myself, I want to see several of the ship systems and weapons from SFB have their own FedCom rule equivalents because I always liked the richness and depth of those things in SFB. However, I do not wish to play SFB; I want to use the FedCom game mechanics. I think that however the rules might be developed for other systems from SFB that are not currently in FedCom, those rules should reflect the more simplistic approach of FedCom. And I think it is possible to do those rules in such a simpler, modular form so that how they interact with other parts of the game will not be an issue.

BoM would be the vehicle that brings this option to FedCom for those who want it.

Perhaps it might be best to call BoM "experimental" instead of "optional." Maybe the best approach to doing BoM would be to introduce systems one at a time as one-page articles in CL or Communique and post them in a special category at Commander's Circle. Of course, that doesn't really make any money for ADB (unless a customer sees that a particular CL has an article about extended distance tractors or stasis field generators or mines or whatever and is attracted to buy it).

I had hoped to simply make this thread more of a definition of what BoM was supposed to be about for the simple reason of putting that answer in one easy-to-find place on the forum. Perhaps it will serve another purpose as well.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:08 pm

Remember that I said you could think of BoM as optional rules for FC? Well, I simply meant exactly that. You can think of it that way. In reality, BoM is a different game that uses FC mechanics. As such, if you are playing FC, then you are playing FC, and BoM is not part of the discussion. If you are playing BoM, then you are playing BoM, not FC.

Why BoM? Because some people just like the FC game system better than SFB. However, they also like some of the chrome of SFB. BoM is designed to meet the needs of those players. And those players do exist. ADB is not going to just ignore them.

As for SFB players, I guess the primary resentment is that they view every FC product as an SFB product that isn't made. In other words, FC is a direct threat to the very existence of SFB.

Post by **Steve Cole** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:18 pm

Well, reminder, BoM is there is bring in units and concepts for those who want them, not clutter which nobody wants.

But perhaps you see why I commented Saturday that the debate over whether BoM should be done at all is far from over.

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:54 pm

I might note that from my point of view, the hope I had for Omega (and for the LMC and other such settings) was that the ships compatible with the "vanilla" ruleset would be treated as belonging to a separate setting, the way the Middle Years and the M81 Galaxy are currently split from the Main Era, but would still be part of the broader "vanilla" game; but that any BoM-esque units (such as carriers) would be treated as, well, BoM.

So, the likes of the Auroran battlecruiser would be FC, but the strike carrier would be BoM.

Not that I'm in a position to confirm any of that, I should add; but I at least wanted to point out what my hopes for the Omega project have been.

ericphillips · Post by **ericphillips** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:15 pm

I am not enthused about BoM1. Carriers and fighters are too much clutter. Escorts are so so with the current aegis rules, and the FC mauler is a no go for me.

So I will probably wait for future BoM products. What I would like for BoM 2 would be optional rules (things like EPTs, Alternate Drones, Mines (no minelayers, just as terrain objects) proximity rules) so the game becomes more of what I want: a simplified SFB somewhere between SFB and FC.

Also, I would like to see two BoM books: Ships that Never Were (some of the cool ones), and BoM: Simulator Empires (long live the Canadiens).

kinshi · Post by **kinshi** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:12 pm

SVC gives a good explanation that clarifies my fears about BoM right here;

http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... 0&start=15

"The problem with BoM is that if it is released at all, there will be people for some BoM becomes FC (they won't play FC without BoM) and that might split some groups into two warring factions, each of which are too small to survive normal attrition."

This right here is why to me the solution is simple...if one TRULY wants the richness and depth, and fiddly bits and chrome, they should play SFB instead, AND be willing to accpet at least SOME minor record keeping ideas from FC (stuff like the ship cards, seeking weapon tracks, arming tracks, and fleet scale SSDs)..and leave it at that.

SFB is a good game, a great game in fact if you really like having options and LOTs of them.

ericphillips · Post by **ericphillips** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:20 am

kinshi wrote: This right here is why to me the solution is simple...if one TRULY wants the richness and depth, and fiddly bits and chrome, they should play SFB instead, AND be willing to accpet at least SOME minor record keeping ideas from FC (stuff like the ship cards, seeking weapon tracks, arming tracks, and fleet scale SSDs)..and leave it at that.

SFB is a good game, a great game in fact if you really like having options and LOTs of them.

You make it seem either/or. I don't play SFB because I prefer the pay on the fly version of FC. Why do I have to chose wither a simpler to play game without the toys, or the overly complex big brother with all the toys. I want the middle ground.

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:15 am

Agree with Eric. The idea that Borders of Madness = SFB Fed-Com-ised is completely and utterly false. Seriously, just compare the rules on ESGs or Andromedan PA panels to the SFB rules and see how different they are. Or even just the drone rules.

If I wanted to perform calculus to work out which shield was hit by an ESG, I'd be playing SFB. The trouble is, right now, if I want to play with carriers or SFGs or whatever, I'd have to play SFB with all the baggage that comes along with it. Like sixty-seven different kinds of drones, 3,000 ships all with refits, commander's options, electronic warfare, et cetera ad nauseam. Of course, I could play SFB tournament rules, which are a subset of the main ruleset, but I still get too much complexity and too slow a game minus the cool stuff - the stuff I want to play with in a simplified, faster form.

Sneaky Scot · Post by **Sneaky Scot** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:41 am

I'm a member of Scoutdad's growing (?) minority - I am looking forward to the idea of BoM. I think it gives the option of a middle ground of complexity for the game - I like PFs, carriers and differing types of drones for example, but dislike the idea of bombers, deceleration due to damage (did anyone ever actually use that?), and tactical intelligence. Doesn't mean they were bad rules, just that they didn't appeal to me all that much. That's the attitude I intend to adopt for BoM; use the stuff that I find interesting, ignore that which I don't. I would expect the vast majority of my games to continue being with "vanilla" FC, and I think that's fine too!

I'm just a happy little bunny. With disruptors...

semperatis · Post by **semperatis** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:53 am

The interesting thing to note Nerroth,is that the FRA CVS uses only DF fighters,there are no seeking weapons used on them. This means,that we could possibly adopt the rules for the Hydran stingers with some slight ammendments,(if they're needed),without any real problems arising.

Post by **Steve Cole** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:20 pm

I don't see simulators as BoM, but as simulators, just more empires. For the most part, they don't use any new weapons.

We've gone around and aorund on carriers and fighters. The goal is to do them without clutter.

They idea that any FC player who wants carriers, maulers, SFGs, penal ships, and scouts should go play SFB is nonsense and a non-starter.

Remember that BoM was never stated to bring in goofy rules (energy balance due to damage, crew quality) but only new technologies (as listed above).

All of that said, my plate is full for this month and next, so chill.

DirkSJ · Post by **DirkSJ** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:43 pm

mjwest wrote:As for SFB players, I guess the primary resentment is that they view every FC product as an SFB product that isn't made. In other words, FC is a direct threat to the very existence of SFB.

The same is true of BoM vs FC. Every BoM product made is a missed opportunity to make an FC product (or an SFB one). That development time could be instead used to make a new race or new ships for the core FC.

Honestly I think it's unlikely to be a good decision to make any BoM product. You are taking a slice of your pie (the FC players) and then making a product that only has potential sales to a slice of that (those that like BoM). Even if they do sell a bit they are optional rules that will likely not even be used in most games. Doesn't seem like a great product.

SVC's notes about splitting the play groups are also a huge concern.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:57 pm

DirkSJ wrote:
mjwest wrote:As for SFB players, I guess the primary resentment is that they view every FC product as an SFB product that isn't made. In other words, FC is a direct threat to the very existence of SFB.
The same is true of BoM vs FC. Every BoM product made is a missed opportunity to make an FC product (or an SFB one). That development time could be instead used to make a new race or new ships for the core FC.

Not really.

The primary reason is the the key pieces of Federation Commander are the Attack and Booster products that provide the laminated cards. Only one set (Attack + three Boosters) can be done in a year, so that leaves opportunity for other "side" products to be done, whether highlighting other times (e.g. Early Years), areas (e.g. Omega), sidelights (e.g. support ships), or Borders of Madness.

So, fundamentally, doing Borders of Madness has no direct bearing on doing a proper Attack style product (that you likely want), but rather is competition for a Briefing style product you probably don't care about.

bolenbr · Post by **bolenbr** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:32 pm

could someone explain why you call this proposed expansion borders of madness.. why that name? Is this a reference to something in SFB

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:46 pm

Anyone wanting the sort of stuff that BoM introduces must be bordering on madness.