Rules Clarification [7.6 & 14.43] Original

Home of the 1st and 2nd editions of STARFIRE

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Rules Clarification [7.6 & 14.43] Original

Postby VoidStalker_WoE on Fri 08 Dec 2017 09:28

Ok, so in my first attempt to make a quick run through of the rules for SF3, I had some thoughts and questions on this section. [7.6] explains things nicely, and while I'm not sure that I would want to do exactly what they outline, I can follow the printed words. But then, we have [14.43], and I am unsure why things are as they are in this part. I suspect that, the situation is changed from one of first contact, to one of post first contact, player defeated. Is this correct?

I am specifically looking at the example in [14.43] that seems not to follow what is laid out in [7.6].
Last edited by VoidStalker_WoE on Sat 09 Dec 2017 13:37, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
VoidStalker_WoE
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2014 16:36
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6] Original

Postby Cralis on Sat 09 Dec 2017 02:05

VoidStalker_WoE wrote:Ok, so in my first attempt to make a quick run through of the rules for SF3, I had some thoughts and questions on this section. [7.6] explains things nicely, and while I'm not sure that I would want to do exactly what they outline, I can follow the printed words. But then, we have [14.0], and I am unsure why things are as they are in this part. I suspect that, the situation is changed from one of first contact, to one of post first contact, player defeated. Is this correct?


It is post first-contact, describing how to handle an NPR that decides against being friendly (section 10?). The roll determines how they will build up their defenses. What I don't see is how to determine if they want to go to war.

I am specifically looking at the example in [14.0] that seems not to follow what is laid out in [7.6].


The example seems to go through the entire process of building the alliances and anti-alliances.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6] Original

Postby VoidStalker_WoE on Sat 09 Dec 2017 02:31

Cralis wrote:
VoidStalker_WoE wrote:Ok, so in my first attempt to make a quick run through of the rules for SF3, I had some thoughts and questions on this section. [7.6] explains things nicely, and while I'm not sure that I would want to do exactly what they outline, I can follow the printed words. But then, we have [14.0], and I am unsure why things are as they are in this part. I suspect that, the situation is changed from one of first contact, to one of post first contact, player defeated. Is this correct?


It is post first-contact, describing how to handle an NPR that decides against being friendly (section 10?). The roll determines how they will build up their defenses. What I don't see is how to determine if they want to go to war.
I got the "Shoot on sight" part from [7.62], as it was just a straight roll against a 01-00 militancy rating of the NPR, that part seemed straight forward, but then I got to the example in [14.43].

Cralis wrote:
I am specifically looking at the example in [14.0] that seems not to follow what is laid out in [7.6].


The example seems to go through the entire process of building the alliances and anti-alliances.
It does indeed, except that, by the rules laid out in the first section, [7.613 & 7.614], with the militancy of the Efreet and Dijinn being 92% and 83%, then a state of war should have existed between the two, and that would seem to say that the Dijinn should have automatically come to the aid of the Terrans, but then in [14.43] they break two rules laid out in the earlier section, namely, failing to check in the proper order of descending militancy {Dijinn @ 83% should have been checked before Ambrosia @ 46%}, and the fact that Dijinn & Efreet are at war, and will never ally...
User avatar
VoidStalker_WoE
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2014 16:36
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6] Original

Postby VoidStalker_WoE on Sat 09 Dec 2017 02:53

I think that I have discovered a SNAFU, that made it past 30 years of folks not reporting it? Either that, or there is something that we have missed. I don't see how that can be, though, so hmmmm....grumbles and, while scratching head in confusion, shambles into the kitchen to begin rustling up a meal....
User avatar
VoidStalker_WoE
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2014 16:36
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6] Original

Postby VX-134 on Sat 09 Dec 2017 03:07

Examples aren't rules, they're just meant to illustrate them. If the example is in error, just ignore the example. I don't see an actual rule in [14.0] that contradicts [7.6].
VX-134
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu 10 Aug 2017 16:48

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6] Original

Postby VoidStalker_WoE on Sat 09 Dec 2017 03:21

VX-134 wrote:Examples aren't rules, they're just meant to illustrate them. If the example is in error, just ignore the example. I don't see an actual rule in [14.0] that contradicts [7.6].
I do not either, but if the example is incorrect, this is the place for it to be made public, as these threads are all about making sure that everybody is on the same sheet of music, so to speak. As you said, example's are just to illustrate the rules, but when the example is demonstrating doing things counter to the rules, I feel that we must point this out, and propose a fix, so that someone that reads this thread, is going to be able to find a corrected text for the example in [14.43].
User avatar
VoidStalker_WoE
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2014 16:36
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6] Original

Postby Cralis on Sat 09 Dec 2017 18:14

VoidStalker_WoE wrote:It does indeed, except that, by the rules laid out in the first section, [7.613 & 7.614], with the militancy of the Efreet and Dijinn being 92% and 83%, then a state of war should have existed between the two, and that would seem to say that the Dijinn should have automatically come to the aid of the Terrans, but then in [14.43] they break two rules laid out in the earlier section, namely, failing to check in the proper order of descending militancy {Dijinn @ 83% should have been checked before Ambrosia @ 46%}, and the fact that Dijinn & Efreet are at war, and will never ally...


The way I read it, is that they make presumptions not specifically laid out. It could be that all of the races had previously been found to not be at war with each other, but they don't specify. This is VERY common in 1st and 2nd edition, especially in the examples.

And the order would seem irrelevant since the Djinn have > 100% chance of joining.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6 & 14.43] Original

Postby VoidStalker_WoE on Sat 09 Dec 2017 18:22

So, looking at the text of [7.6] and the example in [14.43], what suggestion are we going to see to fix this, so that the new players just now buying the PDF, will not be confused?

My unrefined suggestions would be something along the lines of;

The Terran player rolls against the militancy of all four races in system starting with the most militant race present, the Efreet, under normal circumstances, but in this system, we have some particularly feisty folks, so the normal procedures are amended as follows. Because of [7.613 & 7.614], we know that the Dijinn are already at war with the Efreet, and so they and the Efreet will never be on the same side. That being said, the Terrans begin rolling first contact, starting with the Efreet, and not surprisingly, the Efreet fire upon the terran survey ships. Automatically, the Dijinn come to the aid of the terrans, allying with "the Enemy of my Enemy", so to speak. Because there is an active state of war, no roll is required for this to happen, next the Terran player rolls to see if....

And afterwards, proceed as written, excluding everything where the Dijinn are not enemies of the Efreet.

How does that sound?
User avatar
VoidStalker_WoE
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2014 16:36
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6] Original

Postby VoidStalker_WoE on Sat 09 Dec 2017 18:24

Cralis wrote:
VoidStalker_WoE wrote:It does indeed, except that, by the rules laid out in the first section, [7.613 & 7.614], with the militancy of the Efreet and Dijinn being 92% and 83%, then a state of war should have existed between the two, and that would seem to say that the Dijinn should have automatically come to the aid of the Terrans, but then in [14.43] they break two rules laid out in the earlier section, namely, failing to check in the proper order of descending militancy {Dijinn @ 83% should have been checked before Ambrosia @ 46%}, and the fact that Dijinn & Efreet are at war, and will never ally...


The way I read it, is that they make presumptions not specifically laid out. It could be that all of the races had previously been found to not be at war with each other, but they don't specify. This is VERY common in 1st and 2nd edition, especially in the examples.

And the order would seem irrelevant since the Djinn have > 100% chance of joining.
We were both posting here at the same time, lol.

Well, it's a good thing that we are doing this here, then, so that the new folks can see things getting fixed.

[7.613 & 7.614] take care of that, as there is no roll to make.
User avatar
VoidStalker_WoE
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2014 16:36
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi

Re: Rules Clarification [7.6 & 14.43] Original

Postby Cralis on Sat 09 Dec 2017 20:51

What you've posted is an example of why we have taken so much time with the rules in later editions: it doesn't precisely state how you should handle the situation, so you found a solution on your own interpretation. Why is that a problem?

Two reasons. First, a different SM may have a different interpretation so the game win't play the same for everyone. Second, more importantly, YOU may not interprate it the same way every time.

Inconsistencies like this don't bother everyone, but they bother a LOT if players. And they make fair competitions difficult.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Next

Return to Original Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests