Purpose of Borders of Madness

[Blammo]

Personally, I never found the written/hidden fire decisions to be that time consuming and it helped us keep track of what was firing/launching what at what. I don't use it when teaching someone, but I might use it when playing with someone that knows the game. I think it is a wash either way, from what I have seen. When playing with written/hidden fire orders you give a limited amount of time to decide and then it is done. In 'me too' it is only done when all commitment to fire has been completed and you are on the next step. So, unless you set some sort of time limit, it can go on for some time. And, unless you have a "once everyone says no we move to the next step" rule you can get everyone to pass on firing and then one person change their mind and it starts all over.

The way I interpret the 'me too' was that since you were firing/launching once every four impulses (essentially), me too came into being to help compensate. That may be wrong, but it is one way to look at it. I think it is less about reaction firing and more about making up for lost opportunities.

[mjwest]

Hidden firing sucks because, if you want to do it right, you must ask for firing every single firing opportunity. If you do not ask every single time, and do not ask the same way every single time, they you are tipping your hand to what you are planning and defeating the purpose of hidden firing.

Me-too is intended to get rid of all of that. Yes, you can play games by declaring a single Ph-3, but your opponent can always say, "Fine, fire your Ph-3. I am not firing." Then you firing your Ph-3 to no effect and everyone moves on.

As for someone not willing to commit, well, they aren't willing to commit regardless of the system used. If they are going to hem and haw when using me-too, they are gonna be way, way worse with hidden firing.

Personally, I seem more hesitation and time taken with movement in FC, than with firing. Knowing when to use that deceleration (or whatever) on the exact right sub-pulse is where the time is taken. Once the firing opportunity is present, usually it isn't that hard to figure out.

[Blammo]

Hidden firing sucks because, if you want to do it right, you must ask for firing every single firing opportunity. If you do not ask every single time, and do not ask the same way every single time, they you are tipping your hand to what you are planning and defeating the purpose of hidden firing.

Was never my experience. Usually we played the game with a moderator but even when we didn't it took no more time to do hidden fire decisions than it did using variations of the me too...and this was with fleet sized engagements. In FC I ask every since impulse about firing anyway just like I would is SFB so I am not sure the point here.

Also, I can likewise say that me too sucks because you set up a firing opportunity, the other person says no, and then when you announce (s)he suddenly has the brilliant tactical insight to say (s)he will fire as well. And you go through that at every single launch and fire point. It also eliminates being able to get the edge on your opponent by either drawing their fire our or getting a shot off without taking one back. So, not seeing any gain here, just a different way of doing it.

Me-too is intended to get rid of all of that. Yes, you can play games by declaring a single Ph-3, but your opponent can always say, "Fine, fire your Ph-3. I am not firing." Then you firing your Ph-3 to no effect and everyone moves on.

But that is not the way the rules read. You announce you are firing you PH3, and then I tell you to go ahead, then you right before you fire (roll), I change my mind and fire something. Then you decide to fire more, then I decide to fire more (or not, but then change my mind again later), etc, etc, etc. Even playing against my family who are not that familiar it has never been quite as clean as you represent.

As for someone not willing to commit, well, they aren't willing to commit regardless of the system used. If they are going to hem and haw when using me-too, they are gonna be way, way worse with hidden firing.

I agree about the hem-and-haw personality, but disagree about the fire declaration method. Hidden fire is hidden fire. Once in it decided, that is it. You can't then say "wait!". Give everyone a minute (+/-) to decide and then the opportunity is lost. You are either firing or not and hem and haw does not play into it. In all of the SFB battles I played, hidden declaration improved the process as opposed to making it worse.

Personally, I seem more hesitation and time taken with movement in FC, than with firing. Knowing when to use that deceleration (or whatever) on the exact right sub-pulse is where the time is taken. Once the firing opportunity is present, usually it isn't that hard to figure out.

I agree on the movement part. Fortunately, there are some rules to help resolve that (slower using my most first, worse turn mode must move first, etc). But, because you have more movement decision points that fire/launch decision points, it makes sense that it takes more time. FC is a lot more about maneuvering (in my opinion) than SFB in balance against weapon use.

All this discussion tells me is there are two schools of thought on the hidden/me too weapon decision. My observation is that both of them are valid. I have my preference, but follow the rules in face to face play (fortunately, I like PBEM and that demands a little more forethought, planning and is pretty much all hidden decision making).

Cheers!

[dharras]

But that is not the way the rules read. You announce you are firing you PH3, and then I tell you to go ahead, then you right before you fire (roll), I change my mind and fire something.

I don't think there's a "change my mind" step. At the point you said "go ahead", you abrogated your 'me-too' right to fire. Likewise, if you ask your opponent if they are firing anything, you're clearly not (otherwise you'd have declared that phaser or torp). If using a moderator, then they might ask "Anyone firing?" and if noone says something definitive within a set period of time, then they should move on.

Indeed, I'd have thought your way is decidedly dangerous or suicidal against plasma - if you ask what I'm firing, then noone is, reach the launch stage and out they come. Keep asking me what I'm firing every impulse rather than declaring your fire, and so long as I don't fire anything, the only chance you get to hit those torps is in defensive fire...

[Blammo]

I don't think there's a "change my mind" step. At the point you said "go ahead", you abrogated your 'me-too' right to fire.

Not according to the rules. According to the rules, up until the dice rolling begins I can change my mind about firing a weapon. So, I can say go ahead, let you declare all of your fire and then say that I have changed my mind and fired. As long as the dice haven't started rolling, that is legal.

Likewise, if you ask your opponent if they are firing anything, you're clearly not (otherwise you'd have declared that phaser or torp).

Me asking if you are firing is not the same thing as me declaring I am not firing

If using a moderator, then they might ask "Anyone firing?" and if noone says something definitive within a set period of time, then they should move on.

Which is no different from hidden fire declarations.

Indeed, I'd have thought your way is decidedly dangerous or suicidal against plasma - if you ask what I'm firing, then noone is, reach the launch stage and out they come. Keep asking me what I'm firing every impulse rather than declaring your fire, and so long as I don't fire anything, the only chance you get to hit those torps is in defensive fire...

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Once the plasma are out (at launch step), they are valid targets on the next or any future impulses. I have no idea why that is "dangerous or suicidal" since the fire step is before the launch step and I would have to wait for the next impulse fire step before I could shoot at them anyway.

[Bolo_MK_XL]

If you say your firing you have to use something --

That was where my Ph-3 remark came in --

You can keep upping what you want to fire, but not lower it ---

[storeylf]

NVM - everyone to themsleves.

[Blammo]

I wanted to correct myself on one item. I was reading through the rules again tonight and just noticed this statement:

But if both (all) players announce they are not firing, the Sequence of Play (1E) moves on and neither player can go back to change their mind.

So, if everyone says they are not firing, it is understood that step is finished and the next one is started which would prevent anyone from then deciding to fire, or launch, as the case may be. I feel I misstated this part of the me too rule previously and wanted to set things right.

[duxvolantis]

I wanted to correct myself on one item. I was reading through the rules again tonight and just noticed this statement:

But if both (all) players announce they are not firing, the Sequence of Play (1E) moves on and neither player can go back to change their mind.

So, if everyone says they are not firing, it is understood that step is finished and the next one is started which would prevent anyone from then deciding to fire, or launch, as the case may be. I feel I misstated this part of the me too rule previously and wanted to set things right.

It would have been better if the rule were phrased:

But if both (all) players do not announce that they are firing, the Sequence ....

That would make all the "maybe" arguments go away.

[Blammo]

I agree

[Kang]

Is that right, that say if I decide to fire a P-3 then you decide you are not firing, I cannot upgrade my fire to, say, that original P-3 and two P-1's? Because surely once I decide I'm adding in those extra P-1's, you have another chance to declare that you are, in fact, firing something (whatever it is)?

[storeylf]

Yes thats right by my reading, if you want to fire you declare it up front, if you don't then you can't me-to if the other guy did nothing. If you want to play the bluff and double bluff then prepared to be caught out if the other guy offers no chance to add in more fire.

Declaration round 1:

You = Ph3
Me = None.

Declaration round 2:

You= you cannot me-to as I declared nothing.
Me = I can me-to as you fired and I can react to it.

Therefore if I say no more fire, then we are both saying no-more fire and the declarations are over with, it's just that you had no choice in the mattter of being 'no fire'.


Thats my interpretation anyway, it keeps the system down to proper reactive me-to which seems to be what the intent was, and stops all the bluffing and mind games and lengthy gaming of the system that comes of adding 1 phaser at a time to see whether the other guy will do something.


That's not to say there isn't any mind games going on, it larger battles it can still be awkward and involve a certain level of bluff in some scenarios.

[Bolo_MK_XL]

Haven't played in awhile -- but the way it went for us

Anyone firing??? --
If someone said yes, others had choice to me-to or no fire --

Once the "to or not to" fire was determined, we then declared what we were firing --
Allowing further additions to the weapons declaration --

When no one wanted to add anymore weapons then we went to dice rolling --

[Steve Cole]

I don't think the firing thing is an issue. "No" actually IS "maybe" unless everybody says "no".

As for T-bombs, I don't know that I ever declared them out of BoM. Increasingly, I see BoM as a menu of optional rules. Take any or reject any at your pleasure. The fact that we create a t-bomb rule just means "groups that want T-bombs can have them" not "everybody has to use them."

I think one thing we may be seeing (and I've seen it a thousand times) is "I want ADB to protect me from that pushy guys who always argues and argues and argues until we agree to use his favorite optional rules" and guys, I don't think I can do that. Stand up for yourself! If you don't want to use a rule, just refuse to back down, or horse trade it for something else.

[storeylf]

Re: me-to firing;

I don't think it matters most of the time, unless you are in some really competitive game it is likely only important for the occaisonal complicated situation involving multiple ships on each side. The vast majority of the time we are pretty loose with the rule, there has ony been once where I said I'd hold my opponenet to the rule, even then though I let him know that so he could redeclare if he wanted.

I think the problems will arise more due to the fact that in reality someone has to declare first, and some cases in comptetitive games that could make a big difference. Knowing which enemy ships are firing, what and at whom can have an affect on which ships you will target in return.

Indeed, in analysing my loss to Patrick Doyle in the online tourney, it occured to me afterwards that I was way to lax on the main shooting impulse and let him shoot my ship that couldn't fire due to stacking limits (so I lost ship that could have done a lot more damage the impulse after). I would have been in a far better position if I had thought more about the sequence and held to a strict me-to process. I probably would have still lost, but maybe not so badly.

In face to face we tend to note down all our fire if multi ships are involved, and we tend to do that simultaneously if we are both clearly firing, so in effect there is, at least initially, a degree of secrecy that we then reveal to each other. But we are not doing it for that reason, but just so we have a record of who was firing what when it comes to resolving it.