Back when I started playing SFB in the 80s, we never used Mid Turn Speed Changes. It seemed like a needlessly complicated aspect. So instead we played for year without ever doing Mid Turn Speed Changes.
Now I read various tactics articles in the Captain's Logs about how people use them, and I can see where there could be times where such an event might be handy, but as a whole, do you all think the Mid Turn Speed Changes are a necessary rule, a very useful rule, a take-it-or-leave-it rule or a completely unnecessary rule (considering we never used it and didn't feel the game was broken in any way)?
Foundational Rule
Among other things:
They allow you to move fast then slow, or slow then fast, or fast then slow then fast etc. They allow you to fire weapons and still be speedy for part of the turn. Combined with unplotted mid turn speed changes they allow you to adjust your speed in response to tactical situations. They make it more difficult for your opponent to track your power. A person who uses mid turn speed changes will almost always beat someone who does not, given realtively equal ships i.e. tourney play. If ever you were to take the time to play with and master this rule, you would absolutely realize that this rule is completely necessary to play the game at a high level.
So worth it
Have this in your bag of tricks! I used to use it all the time when I was playing in the 80's!
As was said before, you can scream in toward your opponent. If he's tracking your power and trying to figure where you will both be at the end of the turn, he will begin to guess your tactics. Then suddenly you cut speed and he realizes that you will NOT be in overload range at the end of this turn. He may have just committed reserve power to overloads in which case :). Also, if you're moving slower and NOT paying the movement cost for those additional hexes, now he has to wonder where you DID use that power.
Or, you can be clipping along at a slower speed and the opponent might commit to an attack at one point not realizing that you are about to kick up the speed and close to overload range late in the turn after he's fired standard load weapons at longer range. Also, doing this you get the credit for moving at the higher speed (for acceleration purposes) on the next turn.
The extra headache given to the opponent is just a bonus. Having the enemy never knowing exactly where you're about to be is a major advantage.
Mid Turn Speed Changes
Are one of the most important rules in the game. I mean, you can certainly play without them, and have a perfectly fine time. But of all the advanced-ish rules in the game, it is the one that has the most impact on the game, and in a completely positive way. And is much less complicated than one would think.
As Andy points out, it is one of the main rules that you need to understand to be good at SFB, in a competitive sense. Without using mid turn speed changes when your opponent is using them, you will constantly be outmatched in terms of maneuver and energy use.
*Unplotted* mid turn speed changes often can be complicated to figure out. But just, like, plotting speed 14 half the turn and 26 the other half of the turn (for 20 moves total, which will almost always be more useful for you than moving 20 all turn) isn't difficult at all, and key to being good at maximizing your ability to maneuver and fight effectively.
Again, if you and your opponents just want to ignore the rule all together, that's fine, and the game will work. But of everything in the game, it is the rule that you have the most to gain from understanding.
MTSC = good balance
Without it you are sticking it to all disruptor empires. You are also giving plasma a good jump up. Finally, not using it would give 2/3rds movers and even stronger movement advantage.
In short, if you are currently playing a balanced game (e.g. tournament or BVP games with single/double closed map, no terrain (or a planet or moon), no EW (or tourney EW), S8 or house rules against certain ship types (gattling escorts and LDR)) you will unbalance your game quickly by removing this rule from play.
How about if we're using
How about if we're using closed maps, EW of all types, terrain or no terrain depending on the scenario, and have been doing it for decades?
What I'm saying is, we have never used it and our games have run just fine for 20 years. Will adding it unbalance the game after so many years of not using it?
No
Learning the rule won't unbalance things overall. But there will be a period of dynamic shift, as whoever learns it quicker will have an advantage until others catch up. Most of the guys in my group are better tactically than I am, but I understand mtsc and they don't, so I can stay competitive.
One of my favorite tricks is what's known as a dipsy-doodle. If you look at the impulse chart, you can actually get, say, 13 hexes of movement by starting at speed 12, shifting down to 11 from impulses 9-18, then back up to 12. Depending on your turn mode, this could be very important.
Grimace wrote:
>>What I'm saying is, we have never used it and our games have run just fine for 20 years. Will adding it unbalance the game after so many years of not using it?>>
No. As noted, if you guys are playing with the rules set you are playing with, and you are having a good time, and you aren't using mid turn speed changes, go nuts. Nothing bad is going to happen to you or the universe.
But in terms of rules that make the game work well in general, and make a lot of things work better, Mid Turn Speed Changes are one of the most important.
While I am a fan of MTSC
And like the options it opens up, and generally agree with Paul about game balance.
I will note that there are a LOT of 'cheesy exploit' tactics that are enabled by it - the "12-11-12" plot that moves you 13, the ability to slow down from 15 to 14 with Stinger and get an extra hex of movement, and the 6-5-6 shuttle doing 7 hexes of movement are all examples.
I think MTSCs add more to the game for less overhead than tractors or cloaking devices do...but be aware that there are exploits to them.
Pretty much agree with Paul.
Pretty much agree with Paul. Its not as important in fleet battles, but in duels, DIS ships really suffer without speed changes.
Most likely, yes
"What I'm saying is, we have never used it and our games have run just fine for 20 years. Will adding it unbalance the game after so many years of not using it?"
Well, if you have a small group of players that have all used the same rule set for 20 years and are all happy with it, I can't see a good reason to add a new rule into the mix. It is very likely that some in your group will understand the implications of this new rule faster than others and if you are currently happy with the balance of play between everyone, adding this will likely change that.
If you are on a closed map now and not using MTSC then plasma *should* be pretty dominant in your play group. If it's not, for whatever reason, then adding this rule will eventually weaken plasma.
It would be like using standard (e.g. tournament) EW rules after all those years of using full EW. Photon armed ships and to a lesser extent Disruptor armed ships, should be at a disadvantage (mostly the Disruptor armed ships make up for this through the use of ECM drones). If you are none-the-less balanced in that environment and then went to Tourney EW I would expect a balance shift in favor of your Fed player and away from plasma.
Anyway, this rule is a very big deal in terms of skill and empire balance. If you are happy with your play balance not using it, I think it is probable you will be unhappy after you add it. (It will, however, make things a lot better for you in the RATs if you get used to it).
Ken wrote:
>>I will note that there are a LOT of 'cheesy exploit' tactics that are enabled by it - the "12-11-12" plot that moves you 13, the ability to slow down from 15 to 14 with Stinger and get an extra hex of movement, and the 6-5-6 shuttle doing 7 hexes of movement are all examples.>>
I mean, yeah, it is certainly true that you can do these things, but really, is it a problem? That is just how the rule works. Getting 13 hexes while moving 12-11-12 still costs 13 energy. The stinger jumping an extra hex by dropping to 14 isn't really any different than a ship doing the same thing with a battery. This is just how these things work. And overall, even with a bit of a few instances of wonkiness in the rule, I think it makes the game a better game.
Peter, do you actually read entire posts?
The sentence BEFORE you quoted:
And like the options it opens up, and generally agree with Paul about game balance.
The sentence AFTER you quoted
I think MTSCs add more to the game for less overhead than tractors or cloaking devices do...but be aware that there are exploits to them.
I knew groups, from running extensive playtesting circles, that didn't play with MTSCs expressly because of that. These are also groups that wrote about 7 different flavors of house rule to avoid the 'complementary tractored speed' trick.
Someone who's just getting into MTSCs may well decide that the 'cheese factor' is more pain than the benefit is worth....and the first someone someone pulls a "My Stinger slows down to speed 14 to gain one hex on you and fry you" on an unsuspecting opponent?
Major major rules argument erupts.
I've seen it happen multiple times (and to come clean, was the instigator more than once...).
I just don't like the rule. I
I just don't like the rule. I think people do like it because it can be such a game winner against those who don't know how to use it. But it is not a good rule.
Mid Turn Speed Changes is a kludge to allow something that the basic mechanics of the game does not allow. While it works, it is anything but elegant. But that was the designers choice to create this rule on top of the existing movement rules instead of reworking the whole impulse movement system to make it work good.
I still think there is a great game somewhere between FC and SFB, and we will never get to see it.
Ken wrote:
>>Peter, do you actually read entire posts?>>
Uh, yes?
>>The sentence BEFORE you quoted:
And like the options it opens up, and generally agree with Paul about game balance.>>
Which does not negate the idea that I was questioning--that you find the slightly wonky aspects "cheesy exploitation".
>>I think MTSCs add more to the game for less overhead than tractors or cloaking devices do...but be aware that there are exploits to them.>>
My point was that these aren't "exploitation" or "cheesy". They are simply the way the rule works. Which was in no way indicating that I don't actually read entire posts.
>>I knew groups, from running extensive playtesting circles, that didn't play with MTSCs expressly because of that. These are also groups that wrote about 7 different flavors of house rule to avoid the 'complementary tractored speed' trick.>>
Which strikes me as wildly unnecessary.
>>Someone who's just getting into MTSCs may well decide that the 'cheese factor' is more pain than the benefit is worth....and the first someone someone pulls a "My Stinger slows down to speed 14 to gain one hex on you and fry you" on an unsuspecting opponent?>>
They might. Or they might realize that these are simply the way the rule works. And that there is nothing cheesy or exploitive about using the rules as they are designed.
>>Major major rules argument erupts.>>
Because of following a rule correctly?
Eric wrote:
>>I think people do like it because it can be such a game winner against those who don't know how to use it.>>
Uh, no?
People like it 'cause it gives you a great deal more flexibility in how you use energy for movement with a minimal amount of extra effort. And adds a lot of interesting dynamics to the energy allocation process as you figure out where you want to be and how fast you want to be when you get there.
>>But it is not a good rule.>>
It is a rule that is not particularly complicated and adds a great deal of tactical depth to the game. I'm hard pressed to see how a rule that is not particularly complicated and adds a lot to the game is not a good rule.
>>While it works, it is anything but elegant.>>
What makes for an "elegant" rule?
The mid turn speed change rule is relatively simple. It follows a consistent logic. It is very cut and dry.
*Unplotted* mid turn speed changes are kind of a pain in the ass, sure, and the rules are written in a far more complicated and obtuse way than they need to be. But plotted mid turn speed changes? Incredibly straight forward and simple.
I just don't like to play
I agree with Eric: I just don't like to play games that require you to see the future. That is why we don't use pre-plotted movement in our SFB games, and why i prefer FC in general.
The plotted speed change returns to that pre-plotted because there is no easy way to make speed change work on the fly in the middle of a turn, without drastic difficult rules. Again, this is because it was slapped onto a movement system that was never meant to have speed changes in a turn. Look at the original SFB... no mid turn speed changes.
So, just because a rule is easy to implement and use does not make it good, not when it is a kludge. The NFL overtimes rules are easy to use, finish up a game, decalres a winner, but they suck as well.
So, from your post, I guess "its the best we got" makes it a good rule? Hardly.
now, IMHO, I think I have legit reasons I do not like it. YMMV.
Peter, here's what it looks like:
Player A: "OK, so my Stinger slows down...and it jumps forward one hex on an impulse you don't move in, and gets from range 3 to range 2 on your down shield."
Player B: "Wait, slowing down makes you gain a fucking move whenever you want?"
Player A: "Looks like it."
Player B: "Totally fucking bogus. Slowing down should not let you move two hexes in a row on just about any two impulses of the turn." (When it's explained that the Stinger doesn't even have to pre-plot this, the temper fits get louder.)
Then, there's the chase through the rulebook to see whether or not the 6-5-6 for 7 hexes shuttle plot is expressly permitted (it's not mentioned anywhere; this might have been fixed in the eMRB).
Then there's the "How the hell do you calculate speed changes off of battery power again?" argument....
From having seen this scene play out multiple times as people from different SFB groups cross pollinate, the "Do you allow MTSCs" debate is probably second only to "We play with EW" in terms of keeping SFB groups from mingling.
If you do NOT play with MTSC regularly, they look like a steaming heaping pile of cheese. They also significantly raise the 'barrier of entry' - the player who uses MTSCs against the person who does not? They're going to have another advantage...and it's yet another rule that is both written and 'held in the collective unconscious.'
It's not about "following a rule correctly", Peter.
It's about following a common interpretation of a rule, and second and third order ripple effects that are NOT explained in the rule - and which make for a really counterintuitive case ("Slowing down for part of the turn lets you move more than if you'd kept the maximum speed through the entire turn...")
Just because it's the interpretation A) backed up by the ADB BBS and B) used at Origins and C) used among the top tournament players does NOT mean it will be accepted as "yeah, that's right..." among a group of people who've never used MTSCs.
Now, I happen to think that warts and all - MTSCs pay their freight in terms of game balance and fun. But I've been through the scene up above WAAAAY too many times to say "Nah, it doesn't happen." or "It's irrelevant, they're playing the game wrong."
And, when looked at from the outside - from someone who doesn't play with 'em, and doesn't hang out with the cool kids at Origins - they really do look cheesy. :)
Ken wrote:
>>Peter, here's what it looks like:>>
Which is all well and good, but has nothing to do with whether or not I read your whole post. You pointed out that you felt that the small number of wonky situations that come about due to the mid turn speed changes were "cheesy exploitation". I pointed out that it is in no way unreasonable to view these things not as "cheesy exploitation" but simply how the rule shakes out.
>>Player A: "OK, so my Stinger slows down...and it jumps forward one hex on an impulse you don't move in, and gets from range 3 to range 2 on your down shield."
Player B: "Wait, slowing down makes you gain a fucking move whenever you want?"
Player A: "Looks like it."
Player B: "Totally fucking bogus. Slowing down should not let you move two hexes in a row on just about any two impulses of the turn." (When it's explained that the Stinger doesn't even have to pre-plot this, the temper fits get louder.)>>
That is a great little story and all. But just as easily could be:
Player A: "Ok. My Stinger slows down...and jumps forward one hex on an impulse you don't move in and gets from range 3 to range 2 on your down shield."
Player B: "Ouch. That actually works? Cool..."
This is a game. It has rules. Sometimes the rules have wonky little side effects. Not everyone is going to react to these wonky little side effects like petulant children.
>>If you do NOT play with MTSC regularly, they look like a steaming heaping pile of cheese.>>
Or, they look like an interesting effect of the rule that you hadn't really considered before, as you weren't using these rules. There is nothing innately "cheesy" about using the rules as they are written and correctly.
>>It's not about "following a rule correctly", Peter.>>
Yes, Ken. It is.
>>It's about following a common interpretation of a rule,>>
The rule says "X, Y, Z". If there is a common interpretation of a rule that says "M, N, O", that doesn't mean that the common interpretation is right. Or even remotely rational.
Preston wrote:
>>I agree with Eric: I just don't like to play games that require you to see the future. >>
SFB is about nothing *but* seeing the future--am I going to be in overload range this turn? Will I need to use a weasel at some point? What shield might my opponent shoot so I can reinforce it? Will I be able to catch up to someone and tractor them? If I do, how much tractor power will I think I need?
SFB is a game that is, at its very heart, one of trying to predict the future.
>>That is why we don't use pre-plotted movement in our SFB games, and why i prefer FC in general.>>
Oh, sure. That is completely reasonable. FedCom does away with the vast majority of needing to predict things. Which is fine and one of the main selling points of FedCom. But objecting to a rule in SFB 'cause it requires you to try and predict the future is just objecting to SFB. And you are perfectly welcome to object to SFB. But objecting to a rule in SFB 'cause it requires you to try and predict the future is like objecting to a rule in SFB 'cause it requires you to count something.
>>The plotted speed change returns to that pre-plotted because there is no easy way to make speed change work on the fly in the middle of a turn, without drastic difficult rules. Again, this is because it was slapped onto a movement system that was never meant to have speed changes in a turn. Look at the original SFB... no mid turn speed changes.>>
Sure. But Original SFB also had no Hydrans. Or speed 20 drones. Or enveloping plasma torpedoes. Should we object to these as well due to them being kludgey add ons?
>>So, from your post, I guess "its the best we got" makes it a good rule? Hardly.>>
No, it is a good rule that makes the game work better all around, if you like that kind of thing. It has nothing to do with "it's the best we got". It is a simple, incredibly game effecting rule that opens up vast tactical options that are not provided by the basic movement rules. Without being particularly complicated or difficult to use.
>>now, IMHO, I think I have legit reasons I do not like it. YMMV.>>
I'd never claim that you should like these rules if you don't like them. If you don't like them, and you and whoever you play this game with are fine without Mid Turn Speed Changes, great! Keep not using them, do what you like doing, and have fun with it. I'd never suggest otherwise.
But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that these rules are remotely difficult, kludgey, or complicated. And would suggest, to someone who was wondering if they should try them out, that they are actually remarkably easy to use and change the game a great deal to, for my money, the better.
Actually....
I would like to point out that the MRB now specifically says in more than one place that gaining a hex of movement by toggling speeds is absolutely legal. If I had a rulebook here I would cite the rules. But it's not a wonky rules interpretation, it's a rule. And it's one I take advantage of all the time.
And...
if I run across someone who doesnt know the rule, I do not use it myself. And I make every effort to both direct them to the rule book, and explain how it works.
I feel no burning need to bedazzle a beginner with my speed changes!
Guys, read the rule and give it a try in a single ship duel next time you play. If you still prefer no speed changes, then power to you. But I personally think you're missing out on some really good, fun stuff.
I have to agree with Peter B.
I have to agree with Peter B. here.
Its NOT that hard of a rule to get.
I agree somewhat with Ken.... there are a FEW wierd corner cases that cause someone to go "RLY?". Like a 6-5-6 shuttle going 7 hexes or the classic stinger gap jump.
In ALL war games, it is cheese to pull out a rule and beat your opponent to death with superior knowledge of the dark dusty corners of the rule book. OK, this is fine in TOURNY play because the only thing that matters there is:
1) Playing by the rules
2) winning.
If you are with your group, then you should educate them how it works, how to use it, and lay off the silly stinger tricks till they grasp it. Or you should agree not to use it becuase no one else wants to use it.
However, Paul points out very rightly, that on closed maps, it has a HUGE balance implication.
MTSC = good game
I could not agree less with those expressing the opinion that MTSC is some sort of kludge or "something people like so they can beat up on guppies." SFB is an interesting tactical game *because* of MTSC and without it I suspect I would have stopped playing long ago.
MTSC rules are actually fairly elegant and easy to understand. They, along with the other movement rules, however, are one of two broad categories of rules that give SFB its tactical depth. The game is a much much more interesting game when played between two very skilled players both of whom understand MTSC and their implications.
My strong feeling is that there is probably no single other rule you could eliminate from SFB that would reduce the tactical options available (and thus the interest the game holds) than MTSC.
I enjoy mid turn speed changes and what they do for the game.
But I find the following aspects of them abusive.
1) The 6-5-6 7 move shuttle. It wouldn't've been that hard to say "No mid turn speed change can move you more hexes in a turn than the value of the highest speed chosen for an entire turn."
2) Slowing down letting you move on the impulse after you declare a deceleration when, had you retained the original speed, you'd've missed moving that impulse.
I find the "Not before 4, not after impulse 26" restrictions arbitrary.
None of these are as bad as the "insta decel at turn break" issue, but that's never gonna change.
Ken wrote:
>>1) The 6-5-6 7 move shuttle. It wouldn't've been that hard to say "No mid turn speed change can move you more hexes in a turn than the value of the highest speed chosen for an entire turn.">>
I suspect that limit would be more trouble than it is worth. Especially when you start factoring in unplotted speed changes.
And really, does it matter than much that if you launch a shuttle and pre plot its speed changes, it can manage to squeeze out an extra hex of movement? I mean, you can't do this for seeking weapons or weasels; shuttles are often not launched such that they are going to get a full turn of moves; shuttles are often killed before they get real far anyway. How is it actually problematic that once and a while, you end up getting one extra hex of movement out of a administrative shuttle? Such that it would have been worth specifically preventing it?
>>2) Slowing down letting you move on the impulse after you declare a deceleration when, had you retained the original speed, you'd've missed moving that impulse.>>
How do you word this so it makes sense? This would make what is currently a very straight forward and easy to follow rule and makes it have to make bizarre bending over backwards maneuvering just to prevent something that, really, isn't that problematic. Moving 16 till impulse 4 and then switching to 15 for impulse 5 gets you 2 moves in a row by slowing down, sure. But then you don't move on impulse 6 when you would have if you were 16, so it evens out. And half the speed changes in the game consist of "moving a speed till impulse X and then slowing down and moving on impulse Y when you wouldn't have at your original speed". And the vast majority of the time, no one is going to blink twice at this. And you still pay the same energy for the same number of hexes.
These are both instances in the rule that if you think real hard about them, yeah, maybe they are a bit wonky. But given that currently, the rule is fairly simple (relative to how it could be), and having these in that rule would make it all much more convoluted, are they really worth worrying about?
>>I find the "Not before 4, not after impulse 26" restrictions arbitrary.>>
Yeah, they are arbitrary. But lots of things in the game are arbitrary. And really, that particular arbitrary limit keeps the "not within 8 impulses of the last mid turn speed change" (i.e. you can't midturn speed change before impulse 4 or after impulse 28, which results in an 8 impulse mid turn speed change delay over a turn break). And it also strictly limits ships to 4 changes per turn (you can change, at most, on 4, 12, 20, and 28; without those limits, you could technically change on 2, 10, 18, 26, and 32. Which would have in incredibly limited effect on anything, but the "not before 4 and not after 28" at the very least fits into the no more than 4 changes and not within 8 impulses overall).
>>None of these are as bad as the "insta decel at turn break" issue, but that's never gonna change.>>
Yeah, that one is particularly problematic, I agree. But again, wording such a rule that it was manageable after you take a lot of damage (and lose a lot of engines) would be very convoluted. In a game that is plenty convoluted already.
I always hit the brakes to go faster...
These are both instances in the rule that if you think real hard about them, yeah, maybe they are a bit wonky...
Both of those are things that translate to "Hit The Brakes To Go Faster!" This, to a contingent of SFB players, is the epitome of Rules Lawyers Gone Frothing Mad. I have no idea how many in that contingent still play the game at this point, but they used to be a significant minority of people who refused to touch tournament play.
Solving these problems is, in fact, simple.
The first problem:
"A speed plot that covers more hexes than moving the entire turn at the highest speed in the plot is illegal."
Simple. Closes the 6-5-6 and the 29-30-29 speed plot loopholes. No ambiguities, no loopholes.
The second one is slightly more complex:
"On the impulse a speed change takes effect, the unit making the speed change only moves if both the prior speed and the new speed would have moved on that impulse. Otherwise, it does not move on the first impulse in which it is travelling at its new speed."
This can still be gamed a bit to miss movements, but missing movements tends to be a self correcting problem. It does get rid of the "I hit the air brakes and move forward 10,000 km to shoot you" problem.
re: rule weirdness
There are times when I've accepted rules weirdness, to preserve play balance or to aid ease of play. But that has limits
I think that if a wonky rule can be modified without destroying play balance, or severely overcomplicating things, then I don't see any justification not to fix it, or at least try to come up with alternatives.
The WORST though are rules changes with arbitrary solutions.
Well, it's been enlightening
Well, it's been enlightening to see the comments on this thread. I think, after consideration, that our group will refrain from introducing MTSCs. We've gone long enough without them and not had any problems, so I think we can just keep on keepin' on!
I appreciate everyone's comments on the matter. Also, while it wasn't solely the "wonkiness" of some of the situations of MTSCs, it was the fact that none of us ever intend to do tournament play and the decision not to potentially disrupt the balance of what currently seems to be quite suitable operations for all races. (ie. plasma races are fine and not weak, disruptor races are fine and not weak)
Thanks again for your comments.
Ken wrote:
>>Both of those are things that translate to "Hit The Brakes To Go Faster!" This, to a contingent of SFB players, is the epitome of Rules Lawyers Gone Frothing Mad.>>
I suppose. But you aren't "hitting the breaks". You are changing your speed in a game that is based on numbers and written rules, not reality. Worrying about how you can "hit the breaks to go faster" in a game that you yourself have very articulately described as being so far from any sort of reality as to not be worth worrying about the reality aspect (see: trying to shoot a spinning coin at ten thousand feet...) seems silly.
And the whole "rules lawyer" bit isn't really relevant in this case anyway--making a shuttle move 7 hexes with a 6-5-6 plot isn't doing anything at all that the rules tell you you can't. Yes, I realize that there is probably a way to make the rules tell you you can't, but I honestly don't think it is worth the excess verbiage (i.e. how often will it actually matter that a manned administrative shuttle can move 7 hexes in a turn instead of 6?). No one is twisting any logic to do that. They are just following the rules as they are written and ending up with a not completely logical result, but one that isn't out of the realm of what the rules let you do in a very straight forward way.
>>"A speed plot that covers more hexes than moving the entire turn at the highest speed in the plot is illegal.">>
Which becomes a nightmare when combined with unplotted mid turn speed changes, as you need to completely count every move again for every unplotted midturn speed change you consider, as it might be illegal without you realizing it. With the current rules, making an unplotted speed change is complicated, but you don't have to figure things out retroactively--has it been at least 8 impulses since your last SC? Are you increasing your speed to a number that isn't more than double your current one? These are straight forward and simple. If you have to factor in "are you now accidentally moving more hexes total than you would if you have moved your highest speed for the turn for the whole turn--go back and count!", what is already a very unweildy rule becomes way more unweildy. All in the name of outlawing something that rarely comes up, and when it does, it hardly matters anyway.
Really, does it break something that a ship can move, what, 9-10-9 and move 11 hexes? The ship is still paying to move 11 hexes. I agree that it is a bit wonkier with shuttles being able to move further by going 6-5-6 than they would if they went 6 all turn (i.e. 7 hexes), but again, how often is that even going to matter? A manned admin can move 7 hexes over the course of a turn? Is it killing anyone? I mean, even in game terms? Probably not.
>>"On the impulse a speed change takes effect, the unit making the speed change only moves if both the prior speed and the new speed would have moved on that impulse. Otherwise, it does not move on the first impulse in which it is travelling at its new speed.">>
Which then allows you, as you point out, to game the system to *not* move when you should be moving--you can, for whatever reason it seems like a good idea, not move 2 hexes in a row while maintaining a consistently high speed (something like 26/25). Which is still something that someone might object to, but requires a lot more words.
>>This can still be gamed a bit to miss movements, but missing movements tends to be a self correcting problem. It does get rid of the "I hit the air brakes and move forward 10,000 km to shoot you" problem.>>
But again, you aren't "hitting the breaks". You are changing your speed in a game that is all about numbers and charts. And sometimes, things in that game don't make "real world" sense, but most of the time, people are willing to gloss over that (i.e. you can do an infinite number of things and calculations while moving 30 times the speed of light for a fraction of a second; an ESG is a ship mounted energy field that is the size of Jupiter). Why is this one (moving from speed 15 to speed 14 allows you you gain an extra hex now rather than later, but is balanced out by missing that hex when you would have got it previously anyway) worth bending over backwards to prevent?
"Hitting the breaks"?
1. I completely agree with pretty much everything Peter has said on this. SFB is not a space flight and combat simulation game. Nothing here is meant to simulate "reality." Star Trek itself, other than as WW puts it "obligatory technobable" made no attempt to have a Niven-esque internal consistency to it technology, so ultimately what matters is "do the rules generate a tactically rich environment?" I think clearly they do. With that said...
2. "Hitting the breaks?" What breaks? Look at a mini. Look at the ships as used in the series? Where are the breaks? (e.g. the source of reverse thrust). Even in that universe, it is not how it works. It can best be understood, if it can be understood at all, when travelling at warp, to be a form of quantum movement. The "warp field" itself "moves" through space. The ship remains stationary. A segmented, formulaic quantum movement chart probably actually does a better job of "simulating" warp movement than some concept of Newtonian momentum based movement. Not, as I said, that this should really matter to anyone.
Simple fix
A simple fix could have been:
If your new speed is slower than your previous speed, and your next move occurs before it would have done at the old speed, you miss that move.
It eliminates both the possibility of moving more than your max speed and Hit The Brakes To Go Faster!. About the only cheese it might provide is that you could plot 13-12-13-12 and only move 10 hexes (or something - I haven't tried it) which lets you save power while maintaining next turn's max speed of 24.
But I use MTSCs quite happily, with the caveats that
1) The unplotted cap is a stupid, overcomplex, pointless rule that doesn't matter if you do the right thing (which Paul can explain) and I probably get it wrong 50% of the time
2) I dislike the need to plot backwards from i28 to ensure that everything's legal and I can still leave myself the option of an unplotted change after i20. Or whatever it is. You know, that. There was a term paper. That.
I think you are being coy...
" "Hitting the breaks?" What breaks? Look at a mini. Look at the ships as used in the series? Where are the breaks? (e.g. the source of reverse thrust). Even in that universe, it is not how it works. It can best be understood, if it can be understood at all, when travelling at warp, to be a form of quantum movement. The "warp field" itself "moves" through space. The ship remains stationary."
Paul. I think it's clear that one need not take a literalist interpretation of what Ken said to see what he meant.
Whatever the mechanism, one can move at a reduced rate, and move earlier than they would have otherwise, due to the game rules. Perhaps that doesn't bother you, but I don't think it's beyond the pale for Ken (or anyone else) to interpret this as "counter-intuitive to the point of straining one's suspension of disbelief"
I think Mudfoot's suggestion is an easy, SIMPLE, and elegant solution. It doesn't add a layer or rules or complications, and it achieves the desired result. I don't think it's beyond the pale to want to make such a change, to reduce abuse of the rules mechanics.
Jim wrote:
>>If your new speed is slower than your previous speed, and your next move occurs before it would have done at the old speed, you miss that move.>>
Which requires spending more time checking the impulse chart and potential for missing/accidentally not noticing these things. And opens up new and different objectionable ways to "abuse" the system. Which aren't necessarily any better than the old ways.
>>It eliminates both the possibility of moving more than your max speed and Hit The Brakes To Go Faster!. About the only cheese it might provide is that you could plot 13-12-13-12 and only move 10 hexes (or something - I haven't tried it) which lets you save power while maintaining next turn's max speed of 24.>>
At which point you are trading one seldomly relevant slightly wonky issue (going 10-9-10 and moving 11 hexes) for a different seldomly relevant slightly wonky issue (going 13-12-13-12 and moving 10 hexes). Why is the second one preferable to the first?
>>1) The unplotted cap is a stupid, overcomplex, pointless rule that doesn't matter if you do the right thing (which Paul can explain) and I probably get it wrong 50% of the time>>
Assuming you mean the "no more energy than if you had moved that speed the rest of the turn" rule that was clarified 10 years back, I agree. On the one hand, it makes changing speed mid turn unplottedly a lot easier to pay for and do (the end result--if you are moving your new, unplotted speed for the rest of the turn, you only pay 1:1). On the other hand, it makes changing speed mid turn unplottedly a lot easier to pay for and do (it makes it just too easy to plot speed 4 all turn, wait till you are out of danger, and spend 5 batteries to jump up to 14 for the entire second half of the turn. Which makes plotting speed 4 not remotely risky or disadvantageous). If it were me, I would have made unplotted mid turn speed changes *always* cost 2:1 per hex gained, regardless of the circumstances (which was essentially what the rule said until it was "clarified" in 2000 or so).
>>2) I dislike the need to plot backwards from i28 to ensure that everything's legal and I can still leave myself the option of an unplotted change after i20. Or whatever it is. You know, that. There was a term paper. That.>>
That's just a minor bump in the process. You know you can't speed change after impulse 28, so if you think you need to change speed in the last quarter of the turn, don't have a lot of speed changes leading up to that.
Joe wrote:
>>I don't think it's beyond the pale to want to make such a change, to reduce abuse of the rules mechanics.>>
But it just opens up opportunities for different ways to "abuse" the rules. Why is one better than the other?
Bakija wrote: >>SFB is a game
Bakija wrote:
>>SFB is a game that is, at its very heart, one
>>of trying to predict the future.
Yeah. Thats why I don't enjoy it, more than some of the rule complexity. substance I am fine with, style is why I play a game. However, nobody i know plays with pre-plotted movement, so why try to graft a pre-plotting rule onto a free movement concept. As a rule I think it is a kludge.
>>...there is no easy way to make speed change work
>>on the fly in the middle of a turn, without drastic difficult rules.
Well, drastic rules changes, yes, difficult, no, if all the movement rules are re-written from the ground up to work as a unified whole. This didn't happen.
>>But Original SFB also had no Hydrans. Or speed 20 drones.
>>Or enveloping plasma torpedoes. Should we object
>>to these as well due to them being kludgey add ons?
Not if they work well with the rules as written. And they work very well.
If say EPTs didn;t work well either change the rules to make them work well or decide i fit is worth it.
>>No, it is a good rule that makes the game work better
>>all around, if you like that kind of thing.
>>It has nothing to do with "it's the best we got". It is a simple,
>>incredibly game effecting rule that opens up
>>vast tactical options that are not provided by the
>>basic movement rules. Without being particularly
>>complicated or difficult to use.
They do add a lot, no argument. If you want to use them, no problem as well. However, I still maintain that they are the best you got so you are settling. It is like dating a cute girl and thinking it is wonderful, then your best friend dates a supermodel. However, there is no better rule in SFb as it is, so you can't really compare if it is the best or not.
Then again, the grass is always greener where the sheep pee.
Preston wrote:
>>Yeah. Thats why I don't enjoy it, more than some of the rule complexity. substance I am fine with, style is why I play a game. However, nobody i know plays with pre-plotted movement, so why try to graft a pre-plotting rule onto a free movement concept. As a rule I think it is a kludge.>>
I'm unclear on how plotting mid turn speed changes is any more of plotted movement than not plotting mid turn speed changes--if you plot speed 20 all turn, you are using pre-plotted movement in the sense that you have decided before the turn starts that you will be moving speed 20 the whole turn, and hoping that works out. How is that any different than moving speed 26 half the turn and 14 the other half the turn, and hoping that works out? In both cases, you are making a decision during EA that will carry through the rest of the turn, and you are stuck with the end result.
Not being able to change your speed and being stuck at the same speed all turn is just as much of a pre-plotting rule as being able to plot to change your speed in the middle of the turn. The end result is the same. And neither is more or less of a "grafting a pre-plotting rule on free movement".
>>Well, drastic rules changes, yes, difficult, no, if all the movement rules are re-written from the ground up to work as a unified whole. This didn't happen.>>
But they *work* as a unified whole perfectly fine.
>>Not if they work well with the rules as written. And they work very well.>>
As do mid turn speed changes.
>>They do add a lot, no argument. If you want to use them, no problem as well. However, I still maintain that they are the best you got so you are settling.>>
How is a good rule that works well, adds a lot to the game, and does so without an excessive amount of work equate to "settling"? SFB is a game where you pick a speed during EA, and are stuck with it (more or less) for the whole turn. I'm not seeing how picking a single speed and sticking with it all turn is measurably different in a "this is free movement" sense than picking two speeds and sticking with it all turn?
And if your complaint is that not using mid turn speed changes is somehow more free movement than using mid turn speed changes and unplotted mid turn speed changes (where you have considerably more freedom in terms of how you move than without either), I'm not really seeing that.
Bakija said: >>But [the speed
Bakija said:
>>But [the speed change rules] *work* as a unified whole perfectly fine.
That is your opinion, and I do not share it. As I said before, Your Mileage May Vary.
>>And if your complaint is that not using mid turn
>>speed changes is somehow more free movement
>>than using mid turn speed changes
This is not anything like I meant. I think there should be a way to change speed in a turn. I just think the way it works is kind of wonky, and underlying problem caused by an unwillingness to alter the base movement system when adding it on. I just wish it would have a better way to change speed. That's all.
Oh, and that whole part you wrote about not plotting is preplotting or wahtever... semantics. The fact is that I would prefer a move system that allows you to alter your course on the fly to allow you to somehow change speed on the fly.
But of course, if wishes were horses you would need to watch where you step.
And so, I think we made our points. We disagree, and us arguing it is not going to change either opinion.
Even though my opinion is right!!! JK LOL
Trade-Offs with Mid-Turn Speed Changes
I totally get some folks' distaste for some of the MTSC rules. But, let's not forget the trade-offs that come with them.
If a shuttle uses the 6-5-6=7 loophole, or a Hydran fighter the 15-14-15=16 loophole, or a ship the whatever-(whatever-1)=(whatever+1) loophole...
... then that ship is pretty-much committing itself to that plan. You have to make the changes at very specific times on the Impulse Chart. And then you're locked into that speed for at least eight impulses.
That right there is the kicker. My having near certain info that the enemy ship will be at that speed for the next 8 impulses (absent an emergency decel) is excellent tactical information for me. You've gotta ask yourself, is it worth it to lock your speed plot in like this and give away tac intel to the enemy like that? Is it worth it to restrict your ability to make an _unplotted_ speed change when you might really want/need to?
I fly Hydran a lot. There are a few times when I wish I had throttled the clutch to get 16 hexes of movement on those babies. However, I still rarely do it. Because it is often _much_ more important for me to preserve the ability to make a speed change on a critical impulse so I can make the dreaded "range 4 to range 2 jump".
SFB is all about trade-offs, and this is no exception. There is no free lunch.
Unplotted Speed Changes
Your current argument against this, boils down to three elements:
"It doesn't hurt anything for a unit to get one extra hex of movement..."
Aside from the problem that a significant minority of players felt it was codified rules lawyering, and it fractured the player base.
Let me reverse the argument on you: What would it hurt to close the loophole? Surely, if it's not that painful of an exploit, then closing the loophole shouldn't cause any balance problems?
"It would cause too much trouble...I have to do retroactive plotting."
Let's look at this. Currently, you have to count the total hexes moved anyway, to figure out how much power to spend. So that can't be too hard. Currently, you also have to check your maximum speed on a turn against whether or not you have power available to HET, whether or not you've exceeded "double or plus 10". So, you're already comparing that maximum speed to something else - comparing it to the total hexes moved does not seem to add that much overhead to the game.
"It borks unplotted mid turn speed changes."
Since unplotted mid turn speed changes can only be used to accelerate (with the sole exception of fighters), you are going to be picking up more speed. Now, since most of those speed plots are going to be at 1:1, you can compare how much power you spent (you're looking at your EA when doing it anyway with the numbers in front of you), and you're going to be tracking how much power you're spending on it. If total hexes moved exceeds the maximum speed, you have to pick a slower unplotted mid turn speed change.
I am, in fact, having a difficult time trying to figure out a way where you can make an unplotted speed change that's currently legal that would run afoul of this.
The only unplotted mid turns speed change it ruins (to some extent) is unplotted deceleration by fighters.
Paul:
I'm not arguing from a realism standpoint. I am arguing from an internal consistency standpoint. No game can ever be completely internally consistent; consistency is important and more important the more complex a rule system (or subsystem) is.
What sticks in people's craw, and used to cause this argument in a significant subset of the SFB players I played with in the 1990s and early 2000s, is because it's a logical extrapolation of a rule to something that isn't prohibited and is clearly inconsistent with the way the rules are presented.
Realism is never a valid argument for anything in Star Fleet Battles. Internal consistency is a reasonable metric to gauge things by.
It depends
"But it just opens up opportunities for different ways to "abuse" the rules. Why is one better than the other?"
It depends on how it is crafted. While it is possible, I would not automatically assume that it is the case
Ken wrote:
>>"It doesn't hurt anything for a unit to get one extra hex of movement...">>
No, no. It is that the number of times that this comes up, and it is actually problematic for, well, anything, is so small as to not be worth worrying about. I'm not advocating that randomly handing extra hexes of movement to things all over the place has no effect on anything. However, that an administrative shuttle (or whatever) can get 1 extra hex of movement if it is manned and you plot correctly is so very unlikely to ever actually matter that it isn't worth worrying about.
>>Aside from the problem that a significant minority of players felt it was codified rules lawyering, and it fractured the player base.>>
You keep making this claim. And I'm not convinced that this is the case. What does "codified rules lawyering" even mean in this context? The rules specifically say that a shuttle can, with plotted movement, plot speed 6-5-6. There is no ambiguity there. There is no "rules lawyering" to even be done here. No one is interpreting anything. No one is using vagueness to do something that the rules say you can't do. The rules say "you can do X". And while doing X results in a weird end result (i.e. a shuttle moving 7 hexes when it has a speed of 6, for example), there is nothing remotely "rules lawyery" about this. At all.
>>Let me reverse the argument on you: What would it hurt to close the loophole? Surely, if it's not that painful of an exploit, then closing the loophole shouldn't cause any balance problems?>>
It would hurt in that adding additional wording to this rule could easily make problems. I already pointed out the issue that comes from "you can't move more hexes per turn than as if you moved your highest plotted speed all turn"--it makes plotting speeds more difficult and makes using unplotted speed changes considerably more difficult. All to fix something that is an incredibly minor blip that comes from the fact that shuttles don't allocate power for movement (when ships do what shuttles do, they still pay for it, so it is a non issue).
>>Let's look at this. Currently, you have to count the total hexes moved anyway, to figure out how much power to spend. So that can't be too hard. Currently, you also have to check your maximum speed on a turn against whether or not you have power available to HET, whether or not you've exceeded "double or plus 10". So, you're already comparing that maximum speed to something else - comparing it to the total hexes moved does not seem to add that much overhead to the game.>>
I'm not remotely convinced that this is an issue that even *matters* in terms of ships. If a ship moves 11 hexes by moving 10-9-10? The ship is paying for 11 hexes. It isn't getting anything for free. It isn't an issue that needs fixing. I already pointed out that I have sympathy for the shuttle issue, but in reality, it is such a minor glitch that it isn't worth draping extra restrictions and extra hassle in plotting on ships to fix this minor blip.
Preston wrote:
>>This is not anything like I meant. I think there should be a way to change speed in a turn. I just think the way it works is kind of wonky, and underlying problem caused by an unwillingness to alter the base movement system when adding it on.>>
But it works exactly like the base rules already do--with no mid turn speed changes, you pick a speed during EA and go with it. With mid turn speed changes, you pick a couple speeds during EA and go with it.
Altering the base movement system to something other than what they did would have been considerably wonkier--SFB is all about the EA phase, and, as you suggested earlier, trying to predict the future. Sure. They could have made the movement rules completely different, but then the game would not have been SFB anymore.
>> I just wish it would have a better way to change speed. That's all.>>
Well, ok. Then your issues is not that "the mid turn speed change rules are bad", it is "the movement rules in SFB are bad". Which is a completely different issue.
>>Oh, and that whole part you wrote about not plotting is preplotting or wahtever... semantics.>>
You are the one claiming that not using mid turn speed changes allows for more freedom in movement than using the mid turn speed change rules. Which isn't a remotely sensible argument.
>>The fact is that I would prefer a move system that allows you to alter your course on the fly to allow you to somehow change speed on the fly.>>
Sure. Using plotted mid turn speed changes and unplotted speed changes is a lot closer to this that not using these rules.
But again, it seems as if your issue is "I don't like the movement rules in SFB and want them more like the movement rules in FedCom". Sure. But this is not a problem with the mid turn speed change rules. It is a problem with movement in SFB all together.
Joe wrote:
>>It depends on how it is crafted. While it is possible, I would not automatically assume that it is the case>>
The simple version of the "you can't move on an impulse at a lower speed when the higher speed you were just moving wouldn't have moved" presented already provides opportunities for wonky "abuse" (moving 12-13-12-13, skipping a bunch of moves, and spending 10 power while still being able to move speed 24 the next turn) is just as "illogical" a result as moving 16/15 to move two hexes in a row. There are probably ways to word such a rule to avoid these things, but the more wonky results that you need to figure out to circumvent, the longer the extra wording becomes.
At what point does "this is too many extra words" become more important than "this fixes an incredibly minor and arguably completely insignificant wonky result"?
Bakija: A) I NEVER said not
Bakija:
A) I NEVER said not having the mid turn speed change was more freedom, it is less. So drop that. Anything that gives you any option you did not have before if more freedom. And i freely admitted that being experienced in it is a major advantage over those not experienced in it (in the Advanced Missions it is even marked as basically one of three rules that make you a master).
B) I like the SFB move system, but if it would have to change to make the whole experience of changing speeds better, cool. And it does not have to look anything like FC's version. That works fine for FC.
You might as well complain
You might as well complain about the fact that a speed-20 drone can chase down and impact a speed 21 (22, 23...) ship. I've had it happen. The speed chart lets the slower drone jump on an impulse the faster ship doesn't move, and bang.
Now, of course, having had it happen once (or twice...), I watch such things carefully and make sure they don't catch me. But it IS possible, depending on range, time of launch, etc...
It's how the game works.
"You might as well complain
"You might as well complain about the fact that a speed-20 drone can chase down and impact a speed 21 (22, 23...) ship. "
Heh. I lost a game when ten speed 20 drones caught my speed 24 ship.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Preston wrote:
>>A) I NEVER said not having the mid turn speed change was more freedom, it is less.>>
You said this:
"However, nobody i know plays with pre-plotted movement, so why try to graft a pre-plotting rule onto a free movement concept."
I am at a complete lack of understanding as to how a system of picking one speed and using it the whole turn is a "free movement concept" where being able to change speed during the turn, even without plotting, is a "pre-plotting rule".
>> So drop that. Anything that gives you any option you did not have before if more freedom.>>
Sure. Then why did you start this discussion by stating that using mid turn speed changes was an attempt to graft a pre-plotting rule onto a free movement concept? Without mid turn speed changes, you pick one speed and move that the whole turn (which is pre-plotting your speed). With mid turn speed changes, you pick a couple speeds, and move those the whole turn (which is no more or less pre-plotting than when you pick one speed and go with it all turn).
>>And i freely admitted that being experienced in it is a major advantage over those not experienced in it (in the Advanced Missions it is even marked as basically one of three rules that make you a master).>>
I'm not concerned with what gives who an advantage over what. I'm just baffled that you seem to want the game to have movement rules that are more similar to FedCom, yet feel that using mid turn speed changes are problematic when using mid turn speed changes makes the movement rules in SFB considerably closer to FedCom then when you just pick a single speed and move that all turn.
If you don't like the mid turn speed change rules, that's fine. But I don't think the argument you are making here is one that really holds together as to why they are bad.
Peter: The difference is breadth of experience base
I've taught something close to 200 people how to play this game, and played with groups that were, at their time, larger than the current SWA contingent is, in four states. I'm one of two tournament judges who gave out two Ace cards because of 64 player tournaments, and I did so in two states.
I point this out not to brag, but to point out, Peter, that you've largely played at Origins and in an insular community. Your insular community managed to get your house interpretation of the Mid Turn Speed Change rule considered "valid".
I have the 1994 printing of Advanced Missions here. It does NOT specifically state the 6-5-6 speed plot as legal.
Yes, this issue DID come up. Yes, it came up regularly. Yes, it fractured groups, because the guys who felt that the rule was a cheesy abuse pretty much stopped showing up, because if you're playing without Mid Turn Speed Changes against someone who is, you tend to lose. Badly.
And the people who use Mid Turn Speed Changes refuse to play without it, in large part because, yes, it adds a lot to the game tactically. (I am a proponent of Mid Turn Speed Changes, and like what they do for the game. I also happen to feel that the 6-5-6 plot, even if codified into the rules, is a cheesy loophole exploitation that should've been closed.)
What I am pointing out boils down to this:
Yes, there are people who refuse to play with MTSC, their arguments stem from the fact that they see the rule as inconsistent with some of the core premises of the game, and as an avenue for cheesy abuse, and when they drop out over this argument, the total number of SFB players available for local groups drops.
It does not matter whether YOU think the rule is cheesy abuse. THEy do, and they stop showing up, and when they stop showing up, it gets harder and harder to keep an SFB group going.
Now, you could just be saying "Well, nobody left playing the game cares..." at which point, sure, I'll cede the point. Back in the days when I could run 64 person tournaments, there were still people who refused to play tournament, and one of the reasons for it was Mid Turn Speed Changes.
It's really easy to say "Well, nobody I know is bothered by it..." when everyone else who would've objected has left. This argument applies to a lot of things, many of them more important than a 31 year old board game.
Bakija: I stated it because
Bakija:
I stated it because it is my opinion. But you tend to warp my meaning. Perhaps i have not been clear.
however, i have been civil in my attempts to end this debate by pointing out that you and I have different opinions, and that is just fine. What we don't need to do is keep beating a dead horse repeating the same points over and over. I spoke my mind, you spoke yours, and I respect your opinion because I can see your point, respect mine.
In the immortal words of Pvt. Husdson: "Game over, man."
Peace.
Ken wrote:
>>I point this out not to brag, but to point out, Peter, that you've largely played at Origins and in an insular community. Your insular community managed to get your house interpretation of the Mid Turn Speed Change rule considered "valid".>>
There is nothing "house interpretation" in regards to the mid turn speed change issue of a shuttle moving 6-5-6 and moving 7 hexes. That is what the rule says is legal. That is what the rule always said was legal. I agree, yes, it is wonky. But at no point in the existence of this rule did it say that a shuttle doing exactly that was anything other than legal. And I realize that, yes, at some point someone looked at this and said "Hmm. This doesn't really make sense..." and pointed it out and brought it to the attention of the powers that be. But in the end, the issue was not having a rule interpreted to "valid", it was the powers that be saying "well, yeah, ok, it is wonky, but that is always how the rule has worked and that is always what the rule said, and there isn't really any compelling reason to change it now".
>>I have the 1994 printing of Advanced Missions here. It does NOT specifically state the 6-5-6 speed plot as legal.>>
Well, no, it says that such a speed plot is completely legal, as shuttles can make plotted speed changes, and doing exactly that is within the realm of the rules as written in 1994 (or 1984 or whever the actual rule was written). It does not say that a shuttle can't move 7 hexes. No where does it even bring that up. There would need to be something in the rule to specifically disallow the plot in question, rather than a need for there to be something written in the rule to allow it. As that is how rules in games work.
There is no basic limiting factor in the game that prevents doing what we are talking about. There could be. But there isn't. And there never was.
>>Yes, this issue DID come up. Yes, it came up regularly. Yes, it fractured groups, because the guys who felt that the rule was a cheesy abuse pretty much stopped showing up, because if you're playing without Mid Turn Speed Changes against someone who is, you tend to lose. Badly.>>
Which is a completely irrational way to react to this. I realize it happens, but it happening is just stupid and embarrassing to everyone involved. This is a game. It has rules. The rules say what they say. Someone having a conniption and quitting the game 'cause the rules don't prevent a manned administrative shuttle from moving 7 hexes a turn is bordering on insanity. The rational response? To say "Huh. That is wonky. But the rules allow it. Ok then." and move on. Or say "Huh. That is wonky. Let's try and get that changed." Either response is reasonable. Getting mad about it and giving up the game isn't remotely reasonable.
Preston wrote:
>>I stated it because it is my opinion.>>
Which you keep contradicting. In one place, you state that Mid Turn Speed Changes are bad 'cause they are grafted onto the "free movement system" of movement without mid turn speed changes. In another place, you point out that having more options gives you more freedom than fewer options. Again, I don't care that you don't like these rules. That's fine. No one is saying you have to like them or use them. But if you are going to argue that they are bad for a reason other than "I just don't like them" (which is a completely reasonable thing to do), at least have a concrete reason to fuel your argument.
>> But you tend to warp my meaning. Perhaps i have not been clear.>>
How am I warping your meaning?
>>however, i have been civil in my attempts to end this debate by pointing out that you and I have different opinions, and that is just fine.>>
Sure. We do. And again, if your argument is "I just don't like them", say that is your argument and be done with it. But the argument you are presenting isn't really sensical.
>> What we don't need to do is keep beating a dead horse repeating the same points over and over. I spoke my mind, you spoke yours, and I respect your opinion because I can see your point, respect mine.>>
Ok, here is the thing. That isn't how the internet (or the world) works. You don't get to say "Here is my final say. Discussion over." and then expect that someone isn't going to respond to you. If you want the discussion to end, just don't post something. You can't really say "here is my final say. Discussion over. You don't get to respond." That isn't how things actually work. If you are done with the discussion, that is fine. If you don't want to continue it, that is also fine. So don't continue it.
All this could have been fixed...
... if SVC actually played the game.
I cant believe he actually wanted to make a game where, with changes in speed, you could travel further than you actually paid for.
I cant believe anyone would knowingly allow that.
The issue is, many people are now used to it, and see it as accepted, and therefore not abuse.
But of course its abuse.
Peter...if it's NOT in the rulebook
It's an interpretation.
I just checked my 1999 printing of C12. The 6-5-6 plot being expressly legal is ALSO not included there. The notation saying that shuttles have a maximum speed of 6 (and thus, have an implied maximum movement per turn of 6) is still part of J2.0.
Shuttles or Ships
Paying 6 energy and moving 7 hexes is a dodge. It shouldnt be allowed.
Question is, how do you actually fix the game without totally breaking MTSCs ?
Bakija: Oh my God. Really,
Bakija:
Oh my God. Really, you want to continue this meaningless fight? I refuse.
Ken wrote:
>>It's an interpretation.>>
The rules, even in 1994, say that using a mid turn speed change, a shuttle can plot out a legal speed plot of 6-5-6. As the rules expressly allow that speed plot. And don't expressly prohibit a shuttle from moving more hexes than its base speed would allow if it moved that speed all turn. Yes. I realize and agree that this is a wonky result. Yet there is nothing being interpreted here.
>>I just checked my 1999 printing of C12. The 6-5-6 plot being expressly legal is ALSO not included there.>>
I'm not saying that the rules said that it was expressly legal (which they do now, but that isn't what I'm discussing here). The rules specifically spell out what is or is not a legal speed plot. And a shuttle moving 6-5-6 is a legal speed plot. Yes. It is wonky that this results in a shuttle moving more than 6 hexes. I agree. But previous to the current rule book, there was nothing that made it illegal. And plenty of things that made it legal.
>> The notation saying that shuttles have a maximum speed of 6 (and thus, have an implied maximum movement per turn of 6)>>
That you indicate an "implied maximum" is the interpretation if anything is being interpreted. As there aren't actually rules that say that shuttles have an "implied maximum" movement. Shuttles have a speed. When moving that speed, that is the number of hexes they go. When using mid turn speed changes, sometimes not. As that is how the rules work.
In any case, this is all mostly irrelevant. Yes. I agree that it is wonky. And have sympathy to the idea that it is something that could have been fixed a while ago. And completely understand the argument that it is something that shouldn't work the way it does. All of these are completely reasonable viewpoints. But arguing that this rule should be fixed 'cause sometimes people are irrational isn't supporting any of these arguments.
And at this point, I don't think fixing it is worth the excess verbiage. And years ago when they could have fixed it, I don't think it was worth fixing as the actual impact on the game is incredibly minimal.
Preston wrote:
>>Oh my God. Really, you want to continue this meaningless fight? I refuse.>>
A) I'm not fighting with you. I'm discussing something and debating your points as I don't think they make much sense, and you keep responding.
and
B) Then *don't respond*.
Hoju wrote:
>>Question is, how do you actually fix the game without totally breaking MTSCs >>
You don't. As it is an incredibly minor, wonky result in a complex set of rules. And while it is certainly a strange end result, it is just not worrying about.
I remember the coversation...
about the extra hex of movement at Origins 99. It wasn't clear in the rules at that time. I went away for awhile, and purchased the MRB when I came back, and this is where I have found the specific rule that allows a ship or a shuttle to change speeds in such a way as to get the extra hex:
C12.385
C12.341
J1.211
Maybe in more spots, but this is enough. Gee it's funny that this has fractured the player base, because I've never even given it a second thought. I would be ok if you just said a shuttle cant use speed changes and left everything else the way it is, I suppose.
As far as not wanting to use speed changes in general
I strongly suspect tthe majority of players who don't use speed changes don't play that much and view them as too much bother to learn. If you know the rules and still have a philisophical problem with them, don't use 'em. I won't judge. But you will find yourself banging your head against a wall if ever you decide to come online and play tournament SFB.