Federation Commander

DnD 3rd edition and DnD 4th ed are both based on DnD, do they play anything alike? The point is that ADD works in SFB and FC, but in a way that reflects their enrtierly different movement system.

I would agree with that as well ericphillips. A player needs to learn to adapt his or her style of play to fit SFB and FC if he or she plays both. Perhaps SVC thought of what Hod K'el posted when he settled on the current FC ADD rule. There are benefits to both sytems.

Wedge Hammersteel, I agree the apparent dogpile was not necessary. I don't know about others but my post appears to have been made while others were posting at the same time.

If Borders of Madness is considered FC then the Aegis and scout rules also need to be considered as well as fighters, and those both affect the balance of drones. I don't consider BoM as part of FC proper, it's a system for SFB players to use FC as a fast-resolution system for big campaign games. Or at least, that's the intention.

And anyone who says, "That's just semantics" is himself arguing semantics, so neener neener neener

wedge_hammersteel wrote:Hod K’el only put up a topic for discussion. No need to be so harsh on the man. I don’t agree with him but I still enjoy his company in our gaming group.

The manner of the post is what triggered the response. There is nothing that drives people to pile on or respond like someone being wrong on the internet. You'll note if you read back there was an opinion posted, and a couple replies.

Then he said ADDs shoot fighters and you need them for fighter drones.

Then the replies exploded.

It's actually a fun tactic if you ever play any online massively multiplayer games. If you want to know something and no one on the general chat is answering your question just shout out that something off the wall about your question is true. People will swarm to correct you. You'll have 50 responses telling you what you need to know when a simple question 3 minutes ago got you 0 replies.

Humans are weird.

wedge_hammersteel wrote:Borders of Madness is FedCom. The rules are optional. So if there are fighters with drones in BoM then they are also in FedCom. Again, they are optional rules. Use them if you choose. Your verbiage is semantic. From reading some of your previous posts, a lot of your musings are based on semantics.

Borders of Madness is not "Federation Commander". BoM uses the Federation Commander game system to accomplish its goals. BoM is a way to bring elements of SFB into the Federation Commander game system in a way that won't crush the underlying system. But it is a distinct entity.

Yes, that is semantics. But it is still important so that we can define what is meant by the term "Federation Commander" as unambiguously as possible.

The OP was also to some extent an opinion post asking for other opinions. In such a case you want as many responders as possible, even if they are just all saying the same thing, otherwise you may incorrectly conclude widely your how opinion is or isn't shared.

As to the second part, claiming ADDs could do something they couldn't, I have to admit being guilty of quickly hitting post reply without properly reading all the other replies first, and hence largely repeating what was already said.

I do disagree with the stuff about FC being based on SFB etc. It is a different game. Hence arguments that something works like this is SFB just seem bizarre to me. Sure it may share similarities in the rules and mechanics, the Starmada expansion stuff is also based on SFB but is for an even more different game. The ADD in concept is the same either way, a device for taking out incoming drones, the precise mechaincs/rules rightly differ across games, either for mechanical reasons and/or for balance reasons.

Maybe in BoM they will introduce an anti figher rule for it, but FC doesn't need extra baggage for the sort of situation that was presented (mass fighters carrying mass drones).

Despite how much I love the basics of the game I haven't had any interest in SFB for about 20+ years, largely because of the type of game it is , so suggestions that we should port over more of the minutiae from that game tend to get a response from me.

Gentlemen, I really did not mean to cause such a response as what I got. I am also sorry that I forgot that the ADD could not fire at fighters in FC. To be blunt, I was not thinking of FC in my original post, but of BoM.

A summation of my thoughts on this and the responses:
1) I felt 'blown-off' by Mikes first response as it was totally inadequate and sounded like an excuse, not a reason.
2) Even though several of you jumped my case, I believe you are correct, so do not worry about it, I am a big boy and my skin is really thick...just like my head at times.
3) The second posting Mike made was much better and I agree with it.
4) For those of you who continually say fighters (Stingers), I pity your limited thinking because you are only thinking about WYSIWYG and not what may be down the road...including BoM.
5) Yes...I have been waiting patiently for BoM, but since we are looking at fall of 2011...bloody 'L...I'll be 60.
6) All of this has me thinking of selling off my fleets and investing the money into a Roth IRA. And, yes, I have that many ships.

To one and all...good luck and good hunting!

Hod K'el wrote:) Yes...I have been waiting patiently for BoM, but since we are looking at fall of 2011...bloody 'L...I'll be 60.

Quite frankly, it could be longer than that. Or at least to get what you want. There are several components to BoM, and fighters are only part of it. Who knows what Steve will choose to include in the first effort? I don't. I wouldn't be surprised if Steve doesn't even know at this point.

Turning this completely around (and going severely off-topic), what *are* you looking for? I know you said "BoM", but this covers many things. I assume you are looking for fighters, but even that is overly broad. I expect that the initial carriers will be CA-based carriers. Is that what you are looking for, or are you looking for the CVA/SCS/BBV style carriers? In that case, I have *no* idea when we will get there.

I didn't mean to get on you. I think a lot of us are passionate about the subject and were all writing at the same time. As you are when you write that you "pity [my] limited thinking." Thank you very much.

However, I can only argue current products as there is no way to really know what will be in a product that is not yet available AND will be entirely optional as well.

Hod K'el wrote: 4) For those of you who continually say fighters (Stingers), I pity your limited thinking because you are only thinking about WYSIWYG and not what may be down the road...including BoM.

Why is it limited thinking to want the game to remain a game I enjoy. What makes you think I am not thinking what may be down the road, what makes you think I'm not of my opinion because I've thought of what may be down that road.

I have no real interest in BoM, I don't want more fighters and carriers. I'm quite happy with just having 1 fighter using race (stingers). Just as I was quite happy when SFB had only Kzinti with basic assault shuttles, and got increasingly disillusioned as it became a carrier/fighter based game with everyone getting fighters to cobble dogs with.

I don't want all sorts of extra drone types or racks etc, I'm quite happy with the basic drone rules, and the simplicity of the game is without all the other gubbins.

I have no interest in any other rule expansions (that I can think of) after W&P, as I'm not interested in any of the races from the other quadrants/galaxies. I expect W&P to be the last 'real' expansion I'll buy, I'll still buy the things like gorn/kzinti/xxxx attack for the existing stuff after that, but they tend to just be ship cards and a monster type thing, a map board or something similar.

Horses for courses, those who live SFB probably want BoM and a lot more. On the other hand I can't stomach SFB anymore and don't want FedCom 'polluted' by all the baggage. You may pity my limited thinking for not wanting extra rules and fighters and 'stuff', Should I pity your limited thinking for not seeing that you currently have 2 games which can appeal to wider audiences, porting more stuff and more detailed rules just increasingly leaves you with 2 very similar games with the same audience. Death by a thousand features so to speak.

If I had my way there would never be a BoM. It's just useless baggage to an otherwise clean and simple game. In my opinion anything that belongs in BoM should simply stay in SFB and never make it to FC.

Maybe it's just me (and storeylf) but all the piles upon piles of extra rules are what ruined SFB for me. FC releases new races, and the few systems special to that race. They don't regularly release new rules that change everything about how race plays (like a carrier or scout supplement would).

I like that. I'd like to keep SFB out of FC as much as is reasonable. FC was designed and balanced around it's current form. There's no way suddenly giving everyone scouts is going to keep the game balanced. I don't see the purpose for a supplement that unbalances the game, even if optional.

As Steve Cole has said multiple times, half of the customer base says they will quit the game if fighters are included. The other half of the customer base says they will not play the game if fighters are not included. Fun, huh?

Borders of Madness is specifically an attempt to try and please both sides as much as possible. Is it a perfect approach? No. But then, there is no perfect approach, no matter what ADB does. The best they can do is try to work a compromise that best meets diametrically opposing desires.

That is why I stress the semantics of what Federation Commander is and is not. Borders of Madness is not Federation Commander. Granted, BoM uses the Federation Commander system and rules, but BoM is not Federation Commander. Federation Commander is Federation Commander, and Borders of Madness is Borders of Madness.

But please understand the reason for Borders of Madness: It is there for the "other half" of the fans that do desperately want fighters or special sensors or maulers or whatever to use in the game. If your group doesn't want that stuff, then don't use it.

Think of it this way:

When someone challenges you to a gmae of FC, you don't ask "Borders of Madness or No?" Because that question is just doesn't make snese. That would be like saying "Pokemon or no?" to someone who challegened you to a game of Magic. They both use cards; they are not the same game.

If someone wanted to use the BoM rules, they would challenge you to a game of Borderss of Madness, In the same way someone who wanted to use the rules of pokemon would challenge you to a game of Pokemon, not Magic.

So when using the BoM rules, you are Playing BoM, not FC with BoM

pinecone wrote:When someone challenges you to a gmae of FC, you don't ask "Borders of Madness or No?" Because that question is just doesn't make snese. That would be like saying "Pokemon or no?" to someone who challegened you to a game of Magic. They both use cards; they are not the same game.

So they are going to re-release every expansion FC has had but BoM style? Complete with all the same ship cards we have in SFB and FC, rules for all systems, etc? I suspect the answer is no. Therefore one is an add-on for the other not an entirely new game.

The problem with addons that change things in a large way is that they always have balance issues with old material. Giving every race a carrier/scout with FCs rules can't end in a balanced game. All of the ship costs, system costs, system rules, scenarios, etc are all balanced around NOT having carriers and scouts. Every single ship, system, and rule would have to be rebalanced.

What's worse is that after BoM comes out say a new system or race is released for FC. This new race now has to be balanced for both and decisions/changes for the FC rules could be made because of BoM implications.

pinecone, you need to think a little more about your way. Too cute...pokemon and all...

Just because there is BoM or fast drones or scouts or aegis doesnt mean you have to use them.

If person A meets person B and says, " You want to play FC?
Person B: Sure. You want to play core FC or FC with BoM?
Person A: I'd prefer to play core FC but I would like to try a scenario with fast drones.
Person B: Sounds good to me.

Bottom line is this. If I buy only BoM, Is it a game just by itself or do I need the FC rule set? Just as dirksj said, BoM is an add-on to FC.

I can see mj's point about stating that BoM is not FC. He's probably not too keen on the term "core FC." We can start another topic about "purists" and "BoMers."