Ok, I need some weight here.
Our local brace of power gamers have stirred up the hornet's nest on what I
thought was rather obvious.
The rule is the reduction of SM attack range (3" rather than 6") when using
Vector movement over Cinematic Movement. The extension I have understood was
that fighters were covered under this.
However, certain elements have begun to argue that ADFC should also be reduced
to 3" under this rule. This flies in the face of the reasoning for the
original reduction of attack range.
Ryan said:
> However, certain elements have begun to argue that ADFC should also
You reduce the missile (and fighter, if you like) attack radius in Vector
because the ship's destination is much more predictable than in Cinematic. If
you had 6" attack radius, you could not miss any ship
that was thrust 6 or less. But this has nothing to do with ADFC.
> At 7:17 PM -0400 8/11/01, Laserlight wrote:
Aye, that was my understanding, however there has been a certain
e-mail based ruling that I'm concerned Jon made erroneously. ie that
ADFC range _is_ reduced.
This has far reaching consequences with regards to the balance with the Aliens
(I'm sure the Phalon players would like nothing else but for Human ships to
bunch up even further...).
G'day,
> The rule is the reduction of SM
Its not real clear, we never have and didn't even think of that
interpretation until very recently - not that we think its necessary
even now.
> However, certain elements have
Nope, that'd make it useless. End points are more predictable in vector the
actual ships tend to "jiggle position" more so the formations aren't as tidy,
thus you need to keep the 6" to have a useful system.
Cheers
G'day,
> Aye, that was my understanding,
I take it was private email or have I been seriously napping again?
> At 12:42 PM +1000 8/12/01, Fulton, Beth (CMR, Hobart) wrote:
Aye. That is correct. The argument started after a day of power gaming where a
number of the more experienced players weren't present, one was (also the
local FT group list moderator) and she
e-mailed Jon to ask. She's been sticking by that (very
understandable) but I'm concerned that the ruling is a bad one. So, I'm
appealing to the court of play testers...
G'day,
> So, I'm appealing to the court of
Well Jon's got the end say alright, but personally I wouldn't. Unfortunately I
don't have the time at present to do any math on it for you (i.e. give you a
hard argument why you shouldn't), Oerjan would be the man to ask but I think
he's still got a busted computer and so is off air <either that or
you're being unusually quiet/restrained kiddo ;)>. One of the math
whiz's on here might pick it up for you though.
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
> Ryan is correct however about the other part of the issue. We have
<green with envy>
> tow Con with our events Ryan) someone told us we were using things
If "everything" means SMR and fighters, yes. Not ADFC, or submunitions, or
PTorps, etc, which all have 6mu in their
Sun, 12 Aug 2001 12:42:52 +1000 "Fulton, Beth (CMR, Hobart)"
> <Beth.Fulton@marine.csiro.au> writes:
News to me but then I'm a DS2 freak.
Reducing it to half - why not just put the figures on the same stand?
I think not,
Gracias,
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 11:35 PM -0400 8/11/01, kaime@mindspring.com wrote:
Sorry, I was extrapolating from our earlier e-mails. I'm surprised
the 'senior' players didn't explain the basis and have done with it, but then
I know how some of the power players just can't listen...
> I hate to say that this issue is one of the two issues that has brought
I certainly hope you don't think I'm trying to rock the boat. I want to see
this settled correctly though. I just fear a major change in game balance if
ADFC is reduced to 3".
> This does not even take into account when we go to Cons we want to use
Saying it should be so and explaining why are two different things. As Beth
and Laserlight both have stated whats the point of the range reduction if you
reduce redress the balancing force in the first place. Just leave it at 6" to
begin with. One should look at not just what is said in the rules, but why as
well.
> Tell me what should happen when there is no way to have all thirty
If you mean the Non Stop Gaming weekend, I was there, but really didn't have
the mental strength to deal with some of the power players talking about Star
Trek Phase Conjugate Converters or the wonders of the latest Centauri hair
style. I ended up playing that 25mm WWII game. If you mean Warfair, well, I
was in the other room (as you know) playing and running Dirtside. Gladly I
missed the Cheese [most of it] that came running into the Dirtside room for a
rules clarification on jumping into combat....
Beth wrote in reply to Ryan:
> >So, I'm appealing to the court of play testers...
Unfortunately
> I don't have the time at present to do any math on it for you (i.e.
give you
> a hard argument why you shouldn't), Oerjan would be the man to ask but
Yes, I've been off the wires for a while again. ("Kiddo" - hah! I'm
older than you are, young lady! <g>)
Anyway. Since Beth invoked me: ADFC range is NOT reduced to 3mu in Vector; it
is 6mu range in both movement systems. If Jon has said something else, then he
is unfortunately wrong.
> Kaime wrote:
> The supporters for the missile/fighter/PDS/ADFC being 3 MU would say,
If they say so, they are wrong. "a book that first intro's Vector Movement" is
FB1, and the only place where FB1 mentions the 3mu radius is in the Salvo
Missile rule on p.9:
"(SPECIAL NOTE: if you choose to use the VECTOR MOVEMENT system given in
this book instead of the "standard" FT movement rules, then we strongly
suggest reduceing the attack radius of Salvo Missiles from 6" to 3" -
..."
There is no mention anywhere in this "strong suggestion" that fighters, PDS or
ADFC have their ranges reduced. The *only* system which is mentioned is the
Salvo Missile.
The PBL rule in FB2 p.36 says: "I using the vector movement rules from Fleet
Book 1, you may wish to reduce the burst radius of plasma bolts to 4 (or even
3) mu to compensate for the more accurate prediction of target movement that
occurs when using the vector system; a similar rule was suggested in FB1 with
regard to the attack radius of salvo missiles, for
the same reason."
Again there is no suggestion that PDS, fighters or ADFC should be reduced in
range.
The vector movement rules themselves (FB1 pp.3-4 and FB2 p.3) don't say
anything about any weapons or defences.
Regards,
> Ryan is correct however about the other part of the issue. We have
Sorry guys, I think I've stirred this up by not reading Aimee's initial
question carefully enough before answering it - in defence I would say
that I was trying to deal with rather a lot of stuff at the time.... :-/
I've also been a bit behind on reading the mass of emails this weekend, so
didn't pick up on this thread until tonight.
Laserlight is correct in what he says above - the answer I SHOULD have
given is that if you're going to go to 3mu for SMs in vector (keeping in mind
that this is an option anyway, then anything else that relies on
pre-ship-movement counter or model placement for it's effect should also
go to 3mu to keep it consistant. Thus Phalon PBs also go to 3mu, and fighter
attack range should as well. All the things that do NOT rely on guessing the
enemy's positioning should remain at 6mu, such as ADFC radius, Submunition
pack range etc.
Hoping this makes more sense, and may clear up some of the arguments;
unfortunately, unlike FASA, WoTC etc, I don't have a staff on hand to deal
with rules queries!! ;-)
Thank you Jon for that further clarification.
I hope you are not sore that your response bounced from my list to this one,
it wasn't my doing.
Thanks again, maybe my group can play again.
A
[quoted original message omitted]
St^3 Jon said
> in defence I would say
:-/
okay, okay, now get back to sculpting! <g>
> At 9:43 PM +0100 8/12/01, Ground Zero Games wrote:
:-/
Nah, I stirred it up on our list in a polite manner. Others stirred it up
previous in a more messy way.
> I've also been a bit behind on reading the mass of emails this weekend,
You're supposed to sit on your computer night and day Jon! We need
you to get one of those little pager-e-mail devices...That way you
can keep in constant contact with the your adoring fans. :-)
Just kidding... :-P I've got one of those things and I'm scared to
add that address to any lists at all.
> Laserlight is correct in what he says above - the answer I SHOULD have
Achaa! Thank you.
> Hoping this makes more sense, and may clear up some of the arguments;
Actually you do. They are Beth, Oerjan, and others on this list.... :-)
G'day,
> unfortunately, unlike FASA, WoTC etc,
On Monday, August 13, 2001 10:12 AM, Fulton, Beth (CMR, Hobart)
> [SMTP:Beth.Fulton@marine.csiro.au] wrote:
Definately hinderers. That way the final release product isn't subjected to 47
errata, 300 updates and 1000s of rules lawyerish queries (like Evil Empire
(tm) products).
At least we don't send Jon constant emails saying "when will X be released?"
like happens on some lists/companies. ;-)
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[sstrike] Raider Fleet of War Leader Kel'em'all
From: Robertson, Brendan <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> At least we don't send Jon constant emails saying "when will X be
Note that *I* didn't say that. Thanks for the Islamic ships, Jon, now
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:19:51 +1000 "Robertson, Brendan" <snip>
> At least we don't send Jon constant emails saying "when will X be
We don't? Ooops!
Gracias,
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:11:51 +1000 "Fulton, Beth (CMR, Hobart)"
> <Beth.Fulton@marine.csiro.au> writes:
And like Santa's helpers in the humor shtick that went around, you work for
free!
Gracias,
Neither do FASA now....
:-(