> setup will spin on the heading base. (Obviously, the heading base
Yes, you're quite right, but then you have people playing with (or is that
against?) you that want ships' courses plotted out relative to the table's "12
O'clock" so in this case, it's useful. And yes, one of our players is that
picky.
> And quite frankly, unless you are using a gridded table, I can't see
Actually, we play on a kitchen table that has a surface made up of 8" tile
squares, so yes, table positioning is fairly accurate. Also, the 8" grid helps
a little in writing ship orders; fairly easy to eyeball where a ship moving
12" straight is going to wind up.
> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Peggy & Jeff Shoffner wrote:
> Yes, you're quite right, but then you have people playing with (or is
Why would you want that in a real game? The mini is pointing where it's
pointing and you turn X clock faces left or right.
This baffles me. IMHO one of the major points of a miniatures game is to
free the gamer from artificial restrictions of hexes etc.
> Actually, we play on a kitchen table that has a surface made up of 8"
tile
> squares,
...which makes it essentially a gridded table. Next step is to get a table
with hex tiles, write "Hex Thrust" rules, dump the minis and get
some cardboard counters...
...which actually might not be such a bad marketing move for GZG.
> At 12:06 PM 7/28/97 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> pointing and you turn X clock faces left or right.
Agreed. Why do you need a relative grid on a table? For a PBEM game, yes. For
a miniatures game, no. Simply make turns relative to the ship's heading.
> Allan Goodall writes:
@:) Agreed. Why do you need a relative grid on a table? For a PBEM @:) game,
yes. For a miniatures game, no. Simply make turns relative @:) to the ship's
heading.
Since nobody else is standing up for their principles, I feel compelled to
note that I, at least, still believe that a "relative grid" is in better
accordance with the rules, and that it simplifies things greatly.
The real issue, as flogged previously, is whether ships may or may not turn in
increments of anything other than thirty degrees. If ships are allowed to turn
thirty degrees OR FEWER, having a "grid" is useless. If, however, ships are
constrained to turn in EXACT multiples of thirty degrees, they will always
line up with one of the twelve COURSEs described in the rulebook. If a ship
does not line up with a COURSE it is because the handler of that ship has
failed to make it do so, perhaps in an effort to better align a weapon such as
a Nova Cannon. My group doesn't use protractors to make sure ships are always
precisely aligned, but we do allow players to align their ships after, for
example, a formation executes a turn. This helps keep formations together.
> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> If, however, ships are constrained to turn in EXACT
This is only true if it was initially placed along one of the Official(tm)
courses.
Originally, the thought of using absolute headings instead of relative ones
never crossed my mind, but having thought about it, I still feel relative is
superior for a number of reasons:
1) Simplified setup. Place your minis on the table, and that's it. No need to
check compliance with a turning key.
2) Accuracy. Lacking a grid on the table, the nose of the ship is far more
accurate indicator of heading than a table edge a yard distant. I certainly
cannot place a miniature somewhere in the middle of a blank table and be
certain it's heading in an official direction without extensive measuring
equipment.
3) Realism. Coupled with "zero-speed spin to ANY direction (not any
clock face)", completely removes the "I can't hit the docking bay, it's at
11:30" idiocy.
4) Simplifies fighter movement. This is debatable, ofcourse, but excluding
fighters from the absolute direction restriction while
retaining it for ship zero-speed spins is IMHO very confusing.
I must admit that if you read the rulebook like lawyer, absolute headings is
the interpretation you get from it. Though even the book is a
bit ambiguous -- it speaks of recording ship course, yet the fleet
record sheet has no place for it, turning orders are explicitly given as
relative to current heading.
But I wonder what benefit absolute directions would give the game? FT does
not have ANY ship-to-ship rules, IIRC, that rely on relative headings.
If it had, say, deflection modifiers for gunnery, the situation would be
different.
Oh well, play it any way you like it. That's the only really correct way.
On Wednesday, July 30, 1997 9:05 AM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> [SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi] wrote:
If
> it had, say, deflection modifiers for gunnery, the situation would be
One of the benefits is backtracking. If you get the giant space cat or child
of just a lot of ships and an elbow and all the ships fall over.
Re-setting
the ships up can be difficult. If you use absolute directions you can
reconstruct the positions, if its off a relative datum you have no way of
doing this.
> I must admit that if you read the rulebook like lawyer, absolute
Agreed the only record of the course is the position of the ship
counter/mini
I don't find the movement rules ambiguous, I agree with you that they are
written using an absolute datum. Interpreting them in this way shouldn't label
you.
> 3) Realism. Coupled with "zero-speed spin to ANY direction (not any
If you use the relative 'house' rule then the zero turn to any heading you
suggest makes sense.
sincerely
> @:) Agreed. Why do you need a relative grid on a table? For a PBEM
> The real issue, as flogged previously, is whether ships may or may
Well, I didn't realize I'd open up an old wound by saying I play on a grid
table, however, in response to Mikko (?) and the rest, we play on a gridded
table simple because it's the biggest flat surface we have to play on, short
of using the floor. Sorry there isn't a "higher" meaning to why we play on a
gridded table.
As for table positioning, we mainly use it to keep all the ships pointing in
relative positioning to each other. Yes, we follow the strict 30 degree turns
only thought, mainly because we haven't played enough to get involved enough
to say, "Gee, if my Super-Duper Jugger-Nought was turned only 18 1/2
degrees
instead of 30, I could use my ultra high-tech discombobulator on eight
ships instead of seven....."
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Tim Jones wrote:
> One of the benefits is backtracking. If you get the giant space cat or
Re-setting
> the
Lacking giant space virii near my gaming table, I've found the rare
accident can be re-set with the agreement of both players. The headings
(and positions!) won't be exactly the same, but as long as everyone agrees,
who cares?
> Agreed the only record of the course is the position of the ship
Namely:
"...nor do you need to keep track of their Course or velocity;" FT, pg.16.
The fighter movement procedure refers to a normal movement procedure that does
not exist. If this does not lead to ambiguity, I don't know what does.
See for yourself: Ships record their Course only as the heading of the
miniature. Fighters are EXPLICITLY not required to record their Course.
Logically, this means fighter heading need not be recorded, i.e. the mini can
point any way and it doesn't matter. But why do fighters then have only 90
degree fire arc?
Yes, we all know what they *meant*. It's just not what they *wrote*.
> If you use the relative 'house' rule then the zero turn to any heading
It does anyway.
Counter-example:
Give me a table and two ships on it, a fraction of an inch apart, using
absolute directions and integer speeds. I will give you a static asteroid
field that is not solid, but one of the ships can safely navigate through
while the other can't.
Does that sound realistic to you?