Uh, no. Nothing in the game can be so bad to make that necessary.m1a1dat wrote:Or bring back pseudo plasma!
Proposed changes to cloaking
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
<like>storeylf wrote:Agree with that, the lack of secrecy is the really nice thing about this game IMO.mjwest wrote:Uh, no. Nothing in the game can be so bad to make that necessary.m1a1dat wrote:Or bring back pseudo plasma!
[Edit] I have to amplify this by stating that one of my favourite things about FC is the way in which very few things are hidden. When PPTs were introduced in SFB, it was one of the things that spoiled the game for me. There's nothing as honest as a good clean fight, and that's what FC gives you. Love it
Last edited by Kang on Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Wolverin61
- Commander
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:07 am
- Location: Mississippi
- Contact:
-
Sneaky Scot
- Commander
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:28 am
- Location: Tintern, Monmouthshire
-
ncrcalamine
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:49 am
Mike West May 16 2012 712 pm
I am not implicitly (or explicitly) promising anything here. However, I am curious how a particular set of changes would work:
- Voiding doesn't affect the damage modifier. All other protections are still removed.
- Voiding only lasts for one impulse, regardless of cause. (Note that a tractored ship will still be re-voided every impulse.)
- Entering a web hex merely voids the cloak, though it is re-voided every impulse it remains in the hex.
- On the impulse the ship becomes fully cloaked, all seeking weapons targeted on the ship are removed from play, subject to its speed: Speed 0 (or Stopped) removes all seeking weapons; Speed 8 removes all seeking weapons farther than 4 hexes; Speed 16 removes all seeking weapons farther than 8 hexes.
- If a cloaked ship performs emergency deceleration, all seeking weapons still tracking it are removed.
- No other changes to the cloak rules.
Would that make it worth using? Could that be playtested?
Again, no promises. But I do agree that the cloak in FC isn't worth the cost as it currently exists.
I am not implicitly (or explicitly) promising anything here. However, I am curious how a particular set of changes would work:
- Voiding doesn't affect the damage modifier. All other protections are still removed.
- Voiding only lasts for one impulse, regardless of cause. (Note that a tractored ship will still be re-voided every impulse.)
- Entering a web hex merely voids the cloak, though it is re-voided every impulse it remains in the hex.
- On the impulse the ship becomes fully cloaked, all seeking weapons targeted on the ship are removed from play, subject to its speed: Speed 0 (or Stopped) removes all seeking weapons; Speed 8 removes all seeking weapons farther than 4 hexes; Speed 16 removes all seeking weapons farther than 8 hexes.
- If a cloaked ship performs emergency deceleration, all seeking weapons still tracking it are removed.
- No other changes to the cloak rules.
Would that make it worth using? Could that be playtested?
Again, no promises. But I do agree that the cloak in FC isn't worth the cost as it currently exists.
Bigger explanation ...
First, I fully admit that I am inherently predisposed to rules changes. I will still listen to what is said and why, but, as a general position, I do tend toward leaving things as is. Why? Because changing a rule on an established game is a great way to unintentionally unbalance things and send the whole thing on the path to spinning out of control. However, even with that predisposition, I can be convinced to lobby for a rules change when I can see that the lack of a change hurts the game more than a potential change will.
In the case of the cloak, I think it is obvious that it needs changing. In the above post from Nicole, there are actually three proposed changes:
- Damage modifier (50% reduction) always applies.
- Reduce all voiding to one impulse.
- A mechanism to lose seekers when fully cloaked.
I want to take the first two items first and the last one second.
For the first two changes, I believe they have to be made. Those two changes will bring the FC cloaking rules more into line with the SFB rules (in a good way). I haven't gotten feedback from the Steves yet, but I view the first two as absolutely necessary at this point.
For the last change, it is an attempt to reflect the fact that, in SFB, the cloaking device *can* force seeking weapons to go away. What was proposed was a combination of a couple other ideas people game put into a combination that I thought would be easiest to get the effect of SFB without have to deal with "lock on" rolls, or any rolls for seeking weapons. (I really didn't want to have to roll for each seeking weapon all the time, potentially with speed modifiers. For FC, I really think this mechanism needs to be diceless.)
I have sent it off to Steve and I don't think he has had a chance to discuss it with Petrick yet. Once they do that, we will know more.
First, I fully admit that I am inherently predisposed to rules changes. I will still listen to what is said and why, but, as a general position, I do tend toward leaving things as is. Why? Because changing a rule on an established game is a great way to unintentionally unbalance things and send the whole thing on the path to spinning out of control. However, even with that predisposition, I can be convinced to lobby for a rules change when I can see that the lack of a change hurts the game more than a potential change will.
In the case of the cloak, I think it is obvious that it needs changing. In the above post from Nicole, there are actually three proposed changes:
- Damage modifier (50% reduction) always applies.
- Reduce all voiding to one impulse.
- A mechanism to lose seekers when fully cloaked.
I want to take the first two items first and the last one second.
For the first two changes, I believe they have to be made. Those two changes will bring the FC cloaking rules more into line with the SFB rules (in a good way). I haven't gotten feedback from the Steves yet, but I view the first two as absolutely necessary at this point.
For the last change, it is an attempt to reflect the fact that, in SFB, the cloaking device *can* force seeking weapons to go away. What was proposed was a combination of a couple other ideas people game put into a combination that I thought would be easiest to get the effect of SFB without have to deal with "lock on" rolls, or any rolls for seeking weapons. (I really didn't want to have to roll for each seeking weapon all the time, potentially with speed modifiers. For FC, I really think this mechanism needs to be diceless.)
I have sent it off to Steve and I don't think he has had a chance to discuss it with Petrick yet. Once they do that, we will know more.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
Yet another question on when does void end. That came up in a game tonight, and was potentially very important.
If you void a cloak during movement (be it via HET or moving 3 hexes or through asteroids or whatever) does the void end during the 'cloak phase' of this impulse or the 'cloak phase' of next impulse.
Does it last less than 1 impulse (preventing a launch) or more than 1 impulse (giving 2 fire chances).
If you void a cloak during movement (be it via HET or moving 3 hexes or through asteroids or whatever) does the void end during the 'cloak phase' of this impulse or the 'cloak phase' of next impulse.
Does it last less than 1 impulse (preventing a launch) or more than 1 impulse (giving 2 fire chances).
Had a replay of the Orion vs Rom match with Nicole. The new rules did directly come into play this time, namely the voiding part of the new rules, and in doing so also resulted in a key rules debate.
After bolting everything at me at Range 8 the Roms started cloaking but they had to HET to avoid me getting carronade range before the cloak kicked in. One of the ships voided the cloak doing that, and that resulted in the question asked above - I was charging on the Roms hoping one of them would void and I would catch it for phasers/carronades assuming the void would last until the cloak part of the next impulse. The Roms were thinking the void lasted till the cloak part of the same impulse. One way gave me a shot against an voided ship, the other against a fully cloaked ship. We went with my interpretation in the end.
Nicoles HETs went the opposite to last game and he failed all the subsquent HET breakdown rolls which eventually lost the game when his Vulture randomly rotated to face directly away from me at range 1!
I was also thinking about our last game, where we said the new cloak rules made little difference. But I was wondering about that.
Nicole, if we had been playing without the new cloak rules would you still have cloaked at range 12ish. I was wondering whether the difficulty of uncloaking against a plasma armed force would have kept you out of cloak altogether, irrespective of how safe cloaking was at the specific point you did it? I'm not so sure I would have been keen to cloak against plasma under the existing rules, even where the range I cloak is safe.
PS. I have just been reading back over the thread, and noticed that the voided ship should still have been taking half damage. Ouch! I totally forgot/missed that one, that really makes void a pretty minor disadvantage except in a couple of scenarios.
After bolting everything at me at Range 8 the Roms started cloaking but they had to HET to avoid me getting carronade range before the cloak kicked in. One of the ships voided the cloak doing that, and that resulted in the question asked above - I was charging on the Roms hoping one of them would void and I would catch it for phasers/carronades assuming the void would last until the cloak part of the next impulse. The Roms were thinking the void lasted till the cloak part of the same impulse. One way gave me a shot against an voided ship, the other against a fully cloaked ship. We went with my interpretation in the end.
Nicoles HETs went the opposite to last game and he failed all the subsquent HET breakdown rolls which eventually lost the game when his Vulture randomly rotated to face directly away from me at range 1!
I was also thinking about our last game, where we said the new cloak rules made little difference. But I was wondering about that.
Nicole, if we had been playing without the new cloak rules would you still have cloaked at range 12ish. I was wondering whether the difficulty of uncloaking against a plasma armed force would have kept you out of cloak altogether, irrespective of how safe cloaking was at the specific point you did it? I'm not so sure I would have been keen to cloak against plasma under the existing rules, even where the range I cloak is safe.
PS. I have just been reading back over the thread, and noticed that the voided ship should still have been taking half damage. Ouch! I totally forgot/missed that one, that really makes void a pretty minor disadvantage except in a couple of scenarios.
-
ncrcalamine
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:49 am
Yes i have question under the new proposed cloak rules when the void ends. I think it should end in the repair phase of the impulse when the cloak voided .
This gives a full impulse of shooting and launching which unless I am mistaken which is possible was the intent of the new proposed voiding rules.
Alternatively it could end in the same part of the next impules as it was voided in in this impulse.
When does a cloak end under the current rules. Suppose you void the cloak by moving in impulse x. Does it end in impulse x+3 other functions phase giving 4 attack phases and 3 launch phases, or x+4 giving 5 attack phases and 4 launch phases. The rules say it will be voided for 4 impulses but is the voiding impulse impulse 1 or is the next impulse impulse one.
In answer to the question about if I would have cloaked in the first game, the answer is yes. Plasma f as a plasma torp are not scary as long as you are more than two impulses of moves from them.
Nicole
This gives a full impulse of shooting and launching which unless I am mistaken which is possible was the intent of the new proposed voiding rules.
Alternatively it could end in the same part of the next impules as it was voided in in this impulse.
When does a cloak end under the current rules. Suppose you void the cloak by moving in impulse x. Does it end in impulse x+3 other functions phase giving 4 attack phases and 3 launch phases, or x+4 giving 5 attack phases and 4 launch phases. The rules say it will be voided for 4 impulses but is the voiding impulse impulse 1 or is the next impulse impulse one.
In answer to the question about if I would have cloaked in the first game, the answer is yes. Plasma f as a plasma torp are not scary as long as you are more than two impulses of moves from them.
Nicole
Under the current rules, the cloaking ends at the end of the Other Functions Phase of the fourth impulse of voiding. So, if it is voided in impulse X, the voiding ends in X+4. So that means that if it was triggered in the movement phase of X, then the voiding actually lasts for a little more than four impulses.
Similarly, with the dust cloud exception, the voiding is triggered in impulse X, but the voiding doesn't end until the Other Functions phase of X+1.
Given how the current rule is written, and my desire for the changes to be as minimal as possible, that means all voiding would work like the dust cloud exception. Voiding on impulse X means that the voiding ends on impulse X+1 in the Other Functions phase.
Similarly, with the dust cloud exception, the voiding is triggered in impulse X, but the voiding doesn't end until the Other Functions phase of X+1.
Given how the current rule is written, and my desire for the changes to be as minimal as possible, that means all voiding would work like the dust cloud exception. Voiding on impulse X means that the voiding ends on impulse X+1 in the Other Functions phase.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
