Rules Discussion

[Dave Baughman]

I should bring this up, as I don't want to be cheating, even if it hurts me.

I was told a while ago that ammo types didn't count towards your unit being level 1 or 2. I believed it, even if at the time the TC didn't have cool ammo. We do now have access to such, and while I have not been accused of cheating, I just want to make sure that I am not in fact doing so.

To sum up, if you have a "level 1 unit" and you are using special ammo, does that mean you actually have a level 2 unit?

I'm hoping it is still a no, but I want to make sure.

This was never defined one way or another in the FGC rules; if you wanted to go strictly by Total Warfare, ammo selection would be limited by rules level - but that's kind of silly for a late 3060s era campaign.

This is further complicated by the fact that there is no "Level 3" unit type available in FGC, and every faction has at least some Level 3 ammo types (and equipment for that matter) in play -- artillery. I know that some factions have also developed through R&D advanced ammo types that are in the old category of Level 3 (that is to say "Advanced Rules" and/or "Experimental Rules" under the new system).

My inclination is to say that if a faction has a certain type of ammo, any of their units can use it, even if their 'Mech or vehicle designs only contain Introductory-level technology (i.e. Level 1).

[Fatebringer]

I see no problem with allowing special munitions to standard units, but must make special note that Militia are not standard units.

I do believe Jeyar's cuiosity was peaked when I saw "Where the hell did those Tandem Charges come from!?" 

[Jeyar]

Well, I did find my comment about that - but it was way early and in the middle of bunch of updates - but I FULLY agree that I should have stressed it until I knew it was known by you. As a ballance, I was shocked when I found out MM wouldn't let my infernos hit vehicles or open fields. 

[Fatebringer]

LOL, you had that option turned off, so I didn't turn it on when I did the settings.

[Jeyar]

Actually, I've just learned (well, a few days ago) how easy it is to "reset" options for a new game when I gave out the password the game before. Some of the things that were in there for selections I have no idea why anyone would pick in the first place, but it does explain why the games never seemed the same. 

I do have another question. I accidentally read the thread from the FWL (I try not to read threads that don't involve the Taurians), or at least part of it, and I noticed the trading of the HPG tech. It got me thinking:

1) I thought we couldn't trade HPG tech (I have a unused and nearly unusable HPG to testify to that)?

2) Just how much IS made by those in charge of a HPG network per world with a HPG? Does the world being a member vs. local capitol (or anything else) make any difference to the HPG owners (instead of the renters)?

3) Since I have had so many HPG blown up reciently, who do I go to to buy replacements? Is the fact that some nations have the ability known - or is it a secret, or do I just assume that the CA will take an order for a new HPG "at cost"? ...actually, that brings up a new question.

4) Does the cost of a replacement HPG HAVE to match the cost of the HPG makers internal production cost, and if not, which does the rules cost amount reflect: Real cost or common market cost?

[Dave Baughman]

Actually, I've just learned (well, a few days ago) how easy it is to "reset" options for a new game when I gave out the password the game before. Some of the things that were in there for selections I have no idea why anyone would pick in the first place, but it does explain why the games never seemed the same. 

I do have another question. I accidentally read the thread from the FWL (I try not to read threads that don't involve the Taurians), or at least part of it, and I noticed the trading of the HPG tech. It got me thinking:

1) I thought we couldn't trade HPG tech (I have a unused and nearly unusable HPG to testify to that)?

This is correct; factions cannot directly transfer their comm status to another faction under the current rules.

2) Just how much IS made by those in charge of a HPG network per world with a HPG? Does the world being a member vs. local capitol (or anything else) make any difference to the HPG owners (instead of the renters)?

2.0 RP per IC. The world type doesn't make a difference.

3) Since I have had so many HPG blown up reciently, who do I go to to buy replacements? Is the fact that some nations have the ability known - or is it a secret, or do I just assume that the CA will take an order for a new HPG "at cost"? ...actually, that brings up a new question.

Any nation that can make HPGs can sell them. ComStar and Word of Blake will build HPGs at cost, but they will not sell them to anyone - they insist that their compounds are Terran territory like an embassy or consulate, and that they retain ownership of everything inside. Last time someone challenged them on this, they blew up their own HPG cores rather than give them up. Other factions that can make HPGs can of course sell them/lease them/whatever on their own terms; that's a roleplaying issue.

4) Does the cost of a replacement HPG HAVE to match the cost of the HPG makers internal production cost, and if not, which does the rules cost amount reflect: Real cost or common market cost?

No, player-built HPGs can be sold for as much or as little as the seller wants.

[Jeyar]

Actually, in terms of what the worlds with HPG make for the HPG owner, I was more talking about the "normal" worlds - for a while I think it was 1 RP per turn (which seemed amazing as most worlds were making much less), and then the last I heard was IIRC a quarter.

I mean if HPG don't make money for anyone, then how did the CA build so much, and why resist letting others take over the burden?

[Dave Baughman]

Actually, in terms of what the worlds with HPG make for the HPG owner, I was more talking about the "normal" worlds - for a while I think it was 1 RP per turn (which seemed amazing as most worlds were making much less), and then the last I heard was IIRC a quarter.

I mean if HPG don't make money for anyone, then how did the CA build so much, and why resist letting others take over the burden?

Regular HPGs (non-IC) do not generate revenue. The Terran Hegemony is so insistent on controlling them and keeping them out of the hands of others for two reasons:

• Political power and leverage (i.e. "we can threaten people with interdiction")
• Their religious beliefs

not neccessarily in that order.

[Daemonknight]

Question about critical event 11 on Ground Table:
"Encircle and capture 20% of opponent's FP, add to salvage"

because this event takes place before normal combat damage is resolved, in the case of A Place where i am less than 4 FP from going into the Outnumber 2:1 table, do i inflict damage according to the Even Strength, or 2:1? Its not important for that battle(because of the other rolls and critical events, the RNG is crazy lately), but i am curious what the ruling is on if a Critical Event could potentially alter the force ratios in a future battle.

[Dave Baughman]

Question about critical event 11 on Ground Table:
"Encircle and capture 20% of opponent's FP, add to salvage"

because this event takes place before normal combat damage is resolved, in the case of A Place where i am less than 4 FP from going into the Outnumber 2:1 table, do i inflict damage according to the Even Strength, or 2:1? Its not important for that battle(because of the other rolls and critical events, the RNG is crazy lately), but i am curious what the ruling is on if a Critical Event could potentially alter the force ratios in a future battle.

Good question. At first glance it would appear to indicate that the process flow would "promote" you to a more favorable chart. In this case, however, you would still use the ratio from the start of the fight. The reason for this has to do with workflow. Basically, a (simplified) version of the combat flow is like this:

1. Identify forces doing battle.
2. Determine ratio of forces.
3. Roll on appropriate table.
4. Roll of 8+?
4a. If YES, continue to step 5.
4b. If NO, continue to step 8.
5. Crit check roll -- 8+?
5a. If YES, continue to step 6.
5b. If NO, continue to step 8.
6. Roll on critical events table.
7. Apply effects of critical event.
8. Apply damage indicated on step 3.
9. Apply damage control (if applicable).

So, the table used for simple rez (and therefor the damage % inflicted) is determined before any critical events modify the number of FP present on each side during the battle.

Does that make sense?

[Daemonknight]

makes perfect sense, i was just curious what the exact order of actions/reactions was.

[Dave Baughman]

makes perfect sense, i was just curious what the exact order of actions/reactions was.

Some day, probably in the distant future, I want to create an actual flowchart for the whole combat process. I actually have a mockup of one for raid scenarios kicking around somewhere... if I find it I'll upload it.

[GI Journalist]

Is there a reason you are implementing rule changes piecemeal, instead of putting the game on hold and updating them all at once?

Currently, rule changes are being made one or two at a time. Whenever a GM lets a proposed rules change slip to an individual or discusses it outside of these forums, he's opening himself to charges of favoritism. Updating the game completely would avoid that possibility. All players would know what rules we are using and could adjust our plans and strategies equally.

[Daemonknight]

i dont see an issue with the current system...all rule changes are put into a thread, and dont take effect untill the following turn. That way they dont influence the situations in which they might arise.

I think Dave is doing a fine job. Besides, theres always going to be questions and dicussions. We'd never end up actually playing if we decided to stop the game every time a rule needed to be looked at. and i want to play, not wait for 2 weeks to go over a rule that affects a singular situation. A revamp of the combat rules might warrant a stopage of play, but nothing thats been brought up since i've been here has overarching, huge impacts on the way the game is played.

[Iron Mongoose]

Quite. I think the notion that in stopping the game we could create a rules set that would be workable and functional and would not need to be constantly fixed is not sound, not on the basis that we don't have clever people making the rules, or honest players in the game, but on the basis that a game like this will always offer new and unforseen curcumstances, resualts, oppertunities that the rules do not and can not anticapate.  One can't plan for everything, one can't plan for how things will pan out.  If we had all the resorces and energy of a major game company, then we could invest countless hours playtesting, writing, revising, tweeking the rules, only to find as so many companies do that we still managed to make a mistake and we need to revise the rules again. 

Yes, this system leads to some poor outcomes sometimes.  Even in two turns on the new boards, we've seen that take place.  In thirty five on the old ones, I think almost everyone felt the sting once or twice, and some more.  But on ballance, the rules are good enough for us to have a good time, to keep the game moving, to let the RP take place, and to let the MM take place, and that's better than sitting around wirting rules all the time.