Rules Questions and Comments

[JediBear]

Far be it for me to poke my appendages in the hornet's nest, but isn't the basic premise that nukes are anathema in canon not actually borne out in recent canon?

Recent canon is itself the alternate universe. Less-recent canon is part of ours.

Still, there's a point there. But much of that's a matter of perception rather than reality.

Great houses - even whitehat House Davion - confirmed in canon as maintaining secret stockpiles

• House Davion has never been written as being a White Hat faction. People just tend to confuse "Protagonist" with "Good Guy."
• Those stockpiles were ancient ("maintaining" is right, few if any were actually built,) small, and filled with low-yield weapons (the typical Successor State Nuke -- indeed, the majority of nuclear weapons in SS inventories -- is a Davy Crockett round for a the Long Tom Artillery piece. That apparently goes back even to the Star League, and is a habit shared by Peripherants, Clanners, and Wobblies.

• Nukes used in FCCW - commander of the unit that deployed them is demonized but no concrete action is taken to punish her.

To be honest, I part ways with the canon right around here, so my knowledge of the FCCW is pretty limited.

My understanding though is that "Atomic Annie" Leyland and her unit "vanished" during the FCCW, not reappearing until civil authority had more or less totally broken down during the Jihad. Basically, there was no opportunity to punish her.

Moreover, the fella who pointed her at the nuke cache? He got the court-martial. Leyland herself seems to have been forgiven on the strength of her personal heroism against the WoB at New Avalon, but she's still not going to win any popularity contests.

• Nukes used against outreach prior to the start of the Jihad - no one bats an eyelash

Not precisely accurate. That still stands out as a singular event, and I'd be surprised if it didn't come out in the post-war follow-up. Meanwhile, we're heading into an increasingly murky section of the canon. We're talking about a period defined by little more than tabloid reporting.

• Nukes used in Jihad... houses respond by using their own nukes. In the case of the Capellans, using them vigorously and with even less discrimination than the WOB

While some nuclear devices were used, it's a lot less common than most fans seem to think. Outreach aside, WoB seems to have rarely used nukes, and the Houses' limited stockpiles don't seem to have made much of a bang in the end.

• During the Azami/DC nukefest & orbatfest, no one seems to care. No cries of outrage over "obvious DC repression" and/or "EEEEEVIL Azami terrorists," not even from the FS.
• General attitude to WOB BW use seems to be "too bad so sad, but its not happening in my back yard" throughout the majority of the IS. WOB BW, Nuke, etc use isn't an effective propaganda tool in the hands of the allies and doesn't deter mass collaboration (often quite enthusiastic) with the WOB

You've got me on both of these. I'm not overly familiar with the incidents in question.

That said, the Jihad's an alternate history where we're concerned. The conditions that went into creating it never happened here.

Nor does the use of "lesser" WMD like orbital bombardment seem to generate any real outcry in canon.

You wouldn't expect them to. Orbital bombardment got shelved in canon because the Inner Sphere ran out of ships capable of performing it, not because people didn't like it. The last act of a Successor State Warship before they went extinct for two centuries was the destruction of enemy ground forces by orbital bombardment.

The IS never ran out of nukes, nor did it lose the capability to produce them.

there aren't exactly screaming mobs demanding revenge for Turtle Bay until the incident is used as a fig-leaf to give a more compelling reason to attack the Smoke Jaguars than "easiest logistics and/or Mike Stackpole is angry at a Smoke Jaguar player he met in a convention and wants to get some payback."

Can we avoid the Stackpole-bashing? Please? It's pretty far off-topic and suffice it to say I don't agree.

The truth is that Turtle Bay was always viewed as a defining moment in the invasion, it caused a major change in the way the Clans conducted war (at least internally) and it's significant that it is the ONLY episode of orbital bombardment from Operation Revival, despite dozens of Warships being involved in the operation and in at least one other case being tasked to take a world without ground support.

And if it wasn't significant in terms of propaganda, it's only because the Clans were terrifying and abhorrent for so many other reasons.

Even so, there was still some pretty significant hand-wringing when IS Naval Officers were contemplating returning the favor during Operation Serpent.

And all this for what amounts to little more than "big, far-away artillery."

By 3060, the Sphere seemed to be primarily upholding a "no first use" policy that was really better defined as "really, please, just give us an excuse tough guy."

And yet, most commanders didn't rush to use nukes, even when the genie was unbottled, and they worked to put the genie back in its bottle as quickly as they could.

Of course, in canon 3091 attitudes seem to have changed again in favor of strictly conventional war, but that's the result of the Jihad,

I would say it's a result of a culture that categorically abhors nonconventional weapons having lived through a period that saw their use. If you think about it the Jihad's few small incidents don't begin to rise to the level of what we imagined during the Cold War or what the Inner Sphere lived in the Age of War or the Second Succession War. Because nobody had many devices or large devices, their impact was limited. If anything, the Jihad really makes a very good case for low-yield weapons in limited quantities being legitimate tools of war.

The few large-scale incidents -- the scouring of Outreach, for example -- may well have helped convince people to re-bottle the genie. However, that is an argument that people actually were significantly discomfited by those incidents.

Now if people had kept on using nukes, building more and more powerful weapons and using them at the slightest provocation, then I'd say you had a point. But that's not what happened.

[JediBear]

People are different. Just because the people in the canon universe don't use them, doesn't mean everyone, everywhere, universally hates the mere concept of nukes.

That's a terrible argument, and if you don't know it you should. Cultural features are cultural features and the latest leader of your faction is still just the latest in a line of people who haven't used nukes, even in cases of great desperation, in centuries.

Joe Bob isn't Jimmy Sue in other words, but both are Jade Falcons. And Jade Falcons hate nukes.

I say its not abhorrent by my side.

Which, again, is why I don't want you to have the option. To be clear.

I disagree that destroying a faction is the only recourse.

I really don't see your point.

I was talking about the WoB actually, not a small band of renegades.

The part of WoB that uncorked the genie was in fact a small band of renegades.

More importantly, that faction doesn't exist here and never has.

I don't see how removing the nuclear rules would lessen anyone's workload. Its not like putting * next to a unit is a huge bookeeping issue, and thats basiclly all it takes to denote the existance of a nuclear token.

I didn't claim it was a large reduction. It's a few additional items on the spreadsheet and yet another set of rules to know for combat resolution. Further, it's another dimension to think about. It's not a lot of work, but it's not no work.

And there is nothing wrong with RPing without nukes...unless I want to write RP about nukes.

If you want to write RP about nukes, I'd really prefer if you found another venue for it.

And what are you disagreeing with anyways? I made a statement of my personal preferences

As did I.

I don't think there should be an abstract system for saying "you've done something 'bad' and now you're forced to deal with it".

I agree. At no point have I actually advocated such a system.

People always say they like simplicity, but throwing in a stability scale just to scare people off from using nukes is alot more complicated than just making people police themselves, or having the GMs do it abstractly.

Or just not letting people do it.

[Daemonknight]

Pretty sure the definition of Protagonist is the leading hero/heroine of a story. Hero implying 'good guy'. So I'd say that yes, it's very safe to call the Davions whitehats. And the fact they maintained a stockpile at all, even low yields, means that they're not universally hated like you keep saying.

How can you say there was no opportunity to punish Leyland, if they court-martialed the guy who showed her the cache? That implys SOMEONE was around to arrest and try the guy. And if the use of a nuke is so abhorrent, why would they give her a pass? Pretty sure that violating a nation's nuclear policy, would rank up pretty high in the War Crimes department.


And I have to vehemently disagree with your assessment that the IS as a whole, is culturally anti-nuke. If they were, people would never consider their use, and there wouldn't be a genie to unbottle. If they were so against them, everyone would've had disarmament treaties that got rid of all the nuclear weapons. ComStar obviously didn't see the need to remove the Houses nuclear stockpiles, like it did almost all other technology. And then you go and say the Jihad makes a good case for low-yield weapons being acceptable...how can they be culturally abhorrent, and yet acceptable tools in the right size?

You're switiching back and forth. Cannon that proves your theory is relevent, but anything that counters your idea, 'because it doesn't pertain to us', isn't. Then again, most of your cannon sources are 30+ years ago, in our timeline, and thats a long time to assume everything is the same. I'd argue that because of the lack of nuclear weapons, current era commanders and leaders, would be more tolerent, because they've not witnessed any significant nuclear attacks, except for the one terrorist attack on Tharkad. Or the WMD programme that ComStar was running in the FS.

[Daemonknight]

People are different. Just because the people in the canon universe don't use them, doesn't mean everyone, everywhere, universally hates the mere concept of nukes.

That's a terrible argument, and if you don't know it you should. Cultural features are cultural features and the latest leader of your faction is still just the latest in a line of people who haven't used nukes, even in cases of great desperation, in centuries.

Joe Bob isn't Jimmy Sue in other words, but both are Jade Falcons. And Jade Falcons hate nukes.

I say its not abhorrent by my side.

Which, again, is why I don't want you to have the option. To be clear.

I disagree that destroying a faction is the only recourse.

I really don't see your point.

I was talking about the WoB actually, not a small band of renegades.

The part of WoB that uncorked the genie was in fact a small band of renegades.

More importantly, that faction doesn't exist here and never has.

I don't see how removing the nuclear rules would lessen anyone's workload. Its not like putting * next to a unit is a huge bookeeping issue, and thats basiclly all it takes to denote the existance of a nuclear token.

I didn't claim it was a large reduction. It's a few additional items on the spreadsheet and yet another set of rules to know for combat resolution. Further, it's another dimension to think about. It's not a lot of work, but it's not no work.

And there is nothing wrong with RPing without nukes...unless I want to write RP about nukes.

If you want to write RP about nukes, I'd really prefer if you found another venue for it.

And what are you disagreeing with anyways? I made a statement of my personal preferences

As did I.

I don't think there should be an abstract system for saying "you've done something 'bad' and now you're forced to deal with it".

I agree. At no point have I actually advocated such a system.

People always say they like simplicity, but throwing in a stability scale just to scare people off from using nukes is alot more complicated than just making people police themselves, or having the GMs do it abstractly.

Or just not letting people do it.

No, its not a terrible argument. How many people exist in the BT universe? Infact, how many Jade Falcons are there? We're not a hive mind, if we were, the Dark Caste wouldn't exist.

And when you are the head GM, you are free to craft a nuclear weapons free game universe. Untill then, they exist in BT, should exist in our game, and if it exists, I should be allowed to use it, even if you don't like it.

You said that destroying a faction is the only way to enforce anything. I disagree, so I'm not sure what your confused about.

I don't really think the MD were renegades per se. Or really small. And they do exist in our timeline, or have you failed to notice that guy Apollyon in the 62 game, or Arthur Steiner-Davion's shiney metal haircut?

And your preference is noted, but I see no reason why I can't write about nukes if I feel like it. Were you deeply against the nuclear attack that resulted in the LC's breakup? Did you find something horrid about August's threat to pop a nuke on Arc Royal if the SLDF didn't get off? Because I certinly don't remember any outrage being given voice back then.

And yet, you've failed to give a single compelling reason for removing nukes from the game aside from "I have an issue with them". Nukes don't break the game. They're really not complicated at all, base combat has more complicated rules. Dave B has weighed in on their cannon status. Theres really not a reason to remove them.

[Dave Baughman]

Can we avoid the Stackpole-bashing? Please? It's pretty far off-topic and suffice it to say I don't agree.

I'm not criticizing his writing, I was just alluding to the anecdote about the remarks he made at GenCon the year before Twilight of the Clans was rolled out.

I dig what you are saying in your other remarks, and I certainly wasn't trying to stir up a big argument or anything, but I'm still not really convinced that the abhorence of nuclear arms is as deeply-ingrained as the widely-held general opinion in many forums holds. You've got a valid argument about the way that late canon definitely "clarifies" the situation with its focus on Jihad-era WMD use, but even in the old books going all the way back to the House Books and TRO 3025/3026 seem to treat the use of nuclear arms in a pretty blase, banal way. Despite coming from the (notorious for propagandizing and even outright lying to promote their agenda) ComStar, nukings, gassings, poisonings, you name are rattled off with no real excitement or drama.

And yet, you've failed to give a single compelling reason for removing nukes from the game aside from "I have an issue with them". Nukes don't break the game. They're really not complicated at all, base combat has more complicated rules. Dave B has weighed in on their cannon status. Theres really not a reason to remove them.

My post was just my personal opinion and observations. I'm not the GM here any more and while I've contributed a few things here and there to the canon game I hardly qualify as someone who can speak with Canon authority.

I do totally stick to my opinion that giving the players the moral choice is always better for RP; to run with the analogy of letting people take off their clothes in an MMORPG, the nice thing about FGC is that if folks feel strongly about the matter they can enforce the proverbial Indecent Exposure ordnance - which in turn is another expression of letting people make their own in-character choices rather than dictating them from on high.

[Daemonknight]

Should also note, that the Ares Conventions have a 75,000km zone of exclusion around all planets, however outside of of the ZoE, nuclear weapons are permitted.

[Fatebringer]

Pretty sure the definition of Protagonist is the leading hero/heroine of a story. Hero implying 'good guy'.

Actually, that is a largely accepted misconception. A Protagonist is usually the "Good Guy" because people like to write happy ending stories. But in truth, all Protagonist means is that someone is the central figure of a story. They are the ones that audience is supposed to follow as they push the plot ahead. In one of my favorite comic books, Bomb Queen, she's a supervillan in charge of a city of evil, and yes, she's the protagonist.

Should also note, that the Ares Conventions have a 75,000km zone of exclusion around all planets, however outside of of the ZoE, nuclear weapons are permitted.

I was originally ready to use Clan Snow Raven to Orbitally bombard the forces along side the Falcons at Sudeten, but when someone told me about the Ravens signing the Ares II convetion, that's when I started to back off the OB kick. I know the strict definition allows for strategic targeting and use of nukes in certain military settings, but to cross that line at all raises issues and usually escalates exchanges until someone just says "Frak it!" and does something stupid. To avoid escelation, the New Dominion swallowed a hard pill when the DC Coordinator told us it was them who did the nuking of 4 of our ships at Tamar. It was a political decision to accept it as something that was done, but if it ever happens again, Luthien aint far from our border... 

[Daemonknight]

Pretty sure the definition of Protagonist is the leading hero/heroine of a story. Hero implying 'good guy'.

Actually, that is a largely accepted misconception. A Protagonist is usually the "Good Guy" because people like to write happy ending stories. But in truth, all Protagonist means is that someone is the central figure of a story. They are the ones that audience is supposed to follow as they push the plot ahead. In one of my favorite comic books, Bomb Queen, she's a supervillan in charge of a city of evil, and yes, she's the protagonist.

World English Dictionary
protagonist  (prəʊˈtæɡənɪst) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1.    the principal character in a play, story, etc
2.    a supporter, esp when important or respected, of a cause, political party, etc

yes, its the primary person in a storyline, though it is generally meant to describe a heroic persona, whereas the antagonist is the main 'bad guy', in that they oppose the protagonist. Writing the story from the PoV of the 'evil' character changes the dynamic somewhat, but generally from an objective viewpoint, even if the main character is bad, in a good vs evil fight, they could be said to be the antagonist.

[Fatebringer]

Again, another misconception. The definition that you gave from the dictionary meantions nothing about a protagoinst being "meant" to be a good guy.

I stand by my arguement and as Protagonist doesn't mean good guy, Antagonist doesn't mean bad guy. It is the rival to the protagonist that has a counterpoint to present to the story. Why usually, the "Bad Guy" it's not always the case. In my example for Bomb Queen, she has antagonists that are both good and evil because the good guy antagonists are usually superheros trying to change the people in "Her City" to be good and she has to step in to B-Slap the heroes, but also, there is a council of evil goverment types that created her, but lost control of her, and want her out so they can replace her with someone they can manage.

[Daemonknight]

Yes, in your one example the protagonist happens to be an anti-heroine, and everyone thats against her is an antagonist. The vast majority of storywriting, does not follow that forumla. Its not a misconception, its an observation, one which you have chosen a very specific book to counter with. Should we list the number of books where the Protagonist is infact a white-hat, and the Antagonists are black hats?

[Fatebringer]

I guess I'm just still in debate mode from the Grand Loremaster thread I'm going to leave off there for a while to give marlin a chance to respond.

As for our debate here. A Protagonist has nothing to do with either position. The roles given to the protagonist in the story do tend to fall in line with the good guy / bad guys scenario, and I never said they didn't. My point was that applying the roles to the definition is wrong.

[Iron Mongoose]

Though I have my views, alow me (if only for the sake of argument that we do all so love) to offer my view.

I think that because of the way the game has evolved over time, its possible that both sides have made correct points with regard to canon, and I think that is become the case.

In the early material, wicked things were just not done.  Something like distroying a jumpship was feared because it would make the person or group committing the act a periah.  Lostech was precious.  Tsen Shang (or what ever he name was, Justen Allard's counterpart in the Mask in the Warrior books), no softy by any streatch, was horified when he learned of Max's attack on the shipyards at Kathal because he belived the whole IS would band together to take them down for such an attack. 

In such a world, nukes, which damage and kill indiscriminantly, don't fit.  Its pretty easy to imagine Jedi's points holding.  If shooting a mech that's hooking up to a coolant truck is bad, after all...

But, in the modern era, times have changed.  The nuclear attack on Gibson in 3056 or when ever it was (Ideal War) didn't cause a great jihad against the Regulans.  Yes, Paul Masters and co were agast, but he's the whitest of white hats; others just took it in stride.  And that is in the past of our game.  More over, though the FCCW is not in our game's history, the same people that reacted to the events there populated the first years of our game, so its reasonable to apply their reactions to nuclear attacks in our game's past.  Again, though there was shock and outrage, there were no mobs with torches and pitchforks screaming for blood.  There was a simple courtmarshal in the one worst case.  If all a nuking gets you is a pink slip, it can't be as bad as it was thirty years before, when I would infact argue that it was very, very bad.

I think there is a sense of disonance in canon.  Many of us, and not unreasonably, draw our sense of where the universe is grounded from that early material, which later material should and usualy does build on, and so we have these ideas about how things should be that are, while not wrong, not entirely up to date with changes that have taken place over the decades since our cherished canon was laid down.  And so I think its possible that one can argue that nukes are bad, and another can argue they are not, and for both to have merit to their case.

[Daemonknight]

I guess I'm just still in debate mode from the Grand Loremaster thread I'm going to leave off there for a while to give marlin a chance to respond.

Yeah, not fair for us to have all the fun just because we're able to respond more often.

[Marlin]

I feel I am fighting an uphill battle. Although I have some thoughts on the matter, you know I can only try to express myself as Philippe. Not sure it will be successful. And then there is the time issue of course.

Anyway, I tried to answer. Would feel better if we just had some MM matches. Even if I did those too long ago.

[Deathrider6]

On the subject of Nukes in game. They are a horrible, terrible weapon but they are a part of the rules. I have seen them used to varying degrees of effect. Sometimes they work as intended and sometimes they don't. Sould there be consequences for thier use? Yes. I am loathe to add a mechanic to cover that. Why? I am of the opinion that the player's factions should guide "punishments" for violations of the Ares/Ares II conventions. Economic sanctions, covert operations and even open military operations should be considered.. Use of the SLHC or GC as venues to publicize the "crime". As with Nukes...Biological and Chemical Weapons exist and are banned under the aforementioned conventions. At this time rules are being considered but I am still deciding if I will allow them in...