Dramatic SFB: Hidden mines

[Boyd Steere]

As a Kzinti player, I officially hate all T-bombs and other mines,
particularly those that are secretly placed so I can't route my drones
around them.  That said, I acknowledge that this rule has been canon for a
long time and just something that we have to deal with.  If it were up for
a vote (which it isn't), I'd still vote to keep the rule around.  Sometimes
you have to recognize the difference between your own interests and the
interests of the game as a whole.

Now, if it were up for a vote to keep the rule that warp and impulse tacs
move very last in order, even after drones and shuttles and faster-moving
ships, then we could have a debate.  :)

-Boyd

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:03 PM Matthew via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

>
> I was just surprised to find out that the campaign was using hidden mine
> placement.
>
> I personally like narrow salvos.. many do not.
>
> I would also lobby for energy balance due to damage...
>
>
> Currently, the ship has sailed on these issues. I'd like to direct your
> attention to the SFB Rules of interest
> <http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org/docs/rules.html#sfb%20rules> in the campaign.
>
> tl;dr: Give the campaign a chance and then hit up the mailing list after
> the campaign is over.
>
>
> The Secret placement of mines have been part of the campaign since it's
> first public game, where the Romulan player of the time had successfully
> used his Jedi Mind Tricks on the rest of us, to get us to include it. As
> it's optional, I'm not surprised to see that players might want it out. But
> it's in, it's marked in the campaign rules as in, and so the best recourse
> is to minimize it's effects on you (or maximize it's effects on your
> opponents, in hopes that *they* want it out.)
>
> Narrow Salvos are marked as "Advanced", not "Optional". Therefore the game
> is already balanced with those figured into things (the same way it is for
> self-generated EW.) Personally, it never crossed my mind to remove Narrow
> Salvos; they seem to me to be as much part of the game as fancy shuttles
> and t-bombs.
>
> Energy Balance Due to Damage, Leaky Shields, Critical Hits, Pre-Plotted
> Movement, and so on, also are not part of the game as called out by the
> campaign. If you want to include some certain optional rules or leave out
> some certain non-optional rules, then I'm willing to entertain a discussion.
>
> **However**, the middle of ongoing campaigns are not the time to go
> changing the rules. There is usually a short haitus between major campaigns
> (in this case, the Attrition War is a major campaign. The other two
> campaigns are to support it.) That is the time to discuss changes to the
> campaign structure, allowed rules, disallowed rules, and the aim of the
> next campaign(s). We've successfully done that in the past: Scenarios used
> to include rewards and penalties to your income stipend, pre-laid
> minefields have been officially disallowed, Tugs and pods have been added
> to your build lists, changes to the Command-Rating format had been
> discussed and knocked out, and so on.
>
> So let things run their course. See if you can make the current batch of
> rules work for you. And then when we wrap up the current iteration, see if
> you can convince the others to your thinking (and bribe them with cookies.)
>
> --Matt
> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20180611/3b99e48c/attachment-0002.html>