Hunting Packs final decision

[Burger]

OK, so we got conned with Matt's vote. What we voted for is not what was implemented. I think it's time for a new vote to find out exactly where the majority of people lie.

A: Matt's new wording, as on the P&P PDF. As in, a hunting pack can choose to act like a normal super-sized squadron on a turn-by-turn basis if it wants.

B: Burger's wording, same as Matt's except "may nominate one enemy target" is replaced with "must nominate one enemy target". As in, a hunting pack must always choose just one target to shoot (if one is available). Yes it is restrictive, but you're getting a big bonus!

C: P&P wording was fine. Just go back to how it was.

D: I've had enough of this, just bin the whole idea, it'll never work.

Happy voting

 

[Da Boss]

sorely tempted by D but voted B

 

[H]

where is the option for Da Boss's wording as refined by Burger ;-)

well it's centauri, I may have to vote D!

 

[McKickaha]

Voted B but definately considering D

 

[AdrianH]

I'm happy with Matt's wording in the PDF but not with subsequent interpretation of it. I would have said that the final sentence, "In all other respects the Hunting Pack acts as a normal squadron", only means that the usual squadron rules apply where not contradicted or superceded by the definition of a pack. The pack can't switch between being a pack and a regular squadron; it just means that other squadron rules apply, e.g. must stay close together, must all move together.

"In each turn, when the Hunting Pack is nominated to fire, it may nominate one target. Ships within the Hunting Pack may only attack this designated target." I'd interpret that as meaning that the first ship in the pack to declare a target is effectively nominating the target and no other pack member may attack anything else - by that rule, the firing ship must attack the designated target, therefore what it's attacking is the designated target! If the pack chooses not to nominate a target, no pack member can fire at all.

I don't like saying that the pack must nominate a target. Being picky, what happens if there is no target available - does the pack fall apart? Perhaps say that the pack may only nominate one target.

 

[Burger]

"In each turn, when the Hunting Pack is nominated to fire, it may nominate one target. Ships within the Hunting Pack may only attack this designated target." I'd interpret that as meaning that the first ship in the pack to declare a target is effectively nominating the target and no other pack member may attack anything else

No, Matt has clarified that under his wording, if you choose not to designate a "hunting pack target", all squadron members can fire FREELY at any targets they like.

I don't like saying that the pack must nominate a target. Being picky, what happens if there is no target available - does the pack fall apart?

There is no requirement that your nominated target must be in range or arc or LOS...... you can even pick a target that is in hyperspace or on the table next door! You can't shoot it or get any range bonus, but you fulfil the requirements of a pack. Or we could just add the wording, "if there are any available, you must nominate a target".

 

[AdrianH]

"In each turn, when the Hunting Pack is nominated to fire, it may nominate one target. Ships within the Hunting Pack may only attack this designated target." I'd interpret that as meaning that the first ship in the pack to declare a target is effectively nominating the target and no other pack member may attack anything else

No, Matt has clarified that under his wording, if you choose not to designate a "hunting pack target", all squadron members can fire FREELY at any targets they like.

As I said, I'm happy with the wording in the PDF but not with the clarification of the clarification. I suspect that most people would be happier with my interpretation than with Matt's.

I don't like saying that the pack must nominate a target. Being picky, what happens if there is no target available - does the pack fall apart?

There is no requirement that your nominated target must be in range or arc or LOS...... you can even pick a target that is in hyperspace or on the table next door! You can't shoot it or get any range bonus, but you fulfil the requirements of a pack. Or we could just add the wording, "if there are any available, you must nominate a target".

Saying "you may only nominate one target" has about the same end effect except it's more concise and doesn't require you to aim at a nonsensical target if you can't, or don't want to, shoot this turn. Anyway, the key point is that according to Matt's interpretation, the pack can decide that it's not a pack this turn, in which case it doesn't matter how you word that phrase because the squadron will just ignore it anyway.

 

[Burger]

"In each turn, when the Hunting Pack is nominated to fire, it may nominate one target. Ships within the Hunting Pack may only attack this designated target." I'd interpret that as meaning that the first ship in the pack to declare a target is effectively nominating the target and no other pack member may attack anything else

No, Matt has clarified that under his wording, if you choose not to designate a "hunting pack target", all squadron members can fire FREELY at any targets they like.

As I said, I'm happy with the wording in the PDF but not with the clarification of the clarification. I suspect that most people would be happier with my interpretation than with Matt's.

Interestingly your interpretation is exactly the same as my wording.. Matt's wording is different. I think we all wanted what Matt originally proposed in his vote thread, but what he gave us was not the same!

I think we should be focussing on how it works, not how it is worded. Clearly we both want the same thing here, which is not what Matt has given us. So lets unite our efforts, and agree on a specific wording later!

• If the hunting pack wants to fire, it can only fire at one target. If one member is in range then all others gain 50% weapon range.
• If the hunting pack can't or chooses not to fire, it doesn't.
• Under no circumstances can the hunting pack shoot at multiple targets. The only way to do this would be for a ship to split from the squadron, or disband it totally.

Saying "you may only nominate one target" has about the same end effect except it's more concise and doesn't require you to aim at a nonsensical target if you can't, or don't want to, shoot this turn.

Yes accepted... it's all different wording for the same thing.

"Must" and "may only" are good. "May" is bad.

My favourite though is "If there are any available targets, the hunting pack must nominate one target". It might be a few words longer but it is totally watertight.

 

[KennyBoy]

Voted B as such a big bonus (ridiculous amounts of firepower) needs to be balanced out by restricting the target options. 8)

 

[Burger]

Hmm, I'm thinking I shouldn't have put D in... people obviously going for the comedy vote which is detracting from the issue!

Anyway 7 vs 1 at the time of this post. Interesting to see if Matt keeps his promise:

This is likely the last design decision to be made for B5: CTA, so we felt it fitting it be left to you chaps!

 

[H]

Hmm, I'm thinking I shouldn't have put D in... people obviously going for the comedy vote which is detracting from the issue!

Anyway 7 vs 1 at the time of this post. Interesting to see if Matt keeps his promise:

This is likely the last design decision to be made for B5: CTA, so we felt it fitting it be left to you chaps!

it's not a comedy vote, it's a viable option. A rule that was not seemingly playtested, that was "looking" like seriously being broken, had a small fix from a vote, which was then made worse by the writers interpretation. .. so their is no reason to assume it will get better, so D is a valid feeling.

 

[Burger]

True, true. But it's not going to happen. So those who voted D, although we get a realistic impression of how they feel, will have their votes discounted. I have the feeling that if option D wasn't there, B would have been their 2nd choice. That is just speculation though

 

[Chandler]

Hmm, I'm thinking I shouldn't have put D in... people obviously going for the comedy vote which is detracting from the issue!

Anyway 7 vs 1 at the time of this post. Interesting to see if Matt keeps his promise:

This is likely the last design decision to be made for B5: CTA, so we felt it fitting it be left to you chaps!

it's not a comedy vote, it's a viable option. A rule that was not seemingly playtested, that was "looking" like seriously being broken, had a small fix from a vote, which was then made worse by the writers interpretation. .. so their is no reason to assume it will get better, so D is a valid feeling.

I can proudly say that I voted D, not for the comedy value but because I believe the whole concept of giving the Centauri a six ship squadron is completely broken. I would hope that my games club would not use it in its current form as 'voted' on - I think the 'Bravari' house rule is much better!

Again, the majority of the other races get incredibly weak bonuses and the Centauri are amongst the most powerful fleets in the game. And again none of these rules have been properly playtested?!

 

[Target]

Went A but think the ship numbers should be cut down. I know our group sure as hell won't be playin 6 ships.

 

[silashand]

I think the 'Bravari' house rule is much better!

So do I! (never mind that I wrote it ;-))

Cheers, Gary

 

[MongooseMatt]

True, true. But it's not going to happen. So those who voted D, although we get a realistic impression of how they feel, will have their votes discounted. I have the feeling that if option D wasn't there, B would have been their 2nd choice. That is just speculation though

I voted D. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

Anyway 7 vs 1 at the time of this post. Interesting to see if Matt keeps his promise:

This is likely the last design decision to be made for B5: CTA, so we felt it fitting it be left to you chaps!

Why wouldn't I?

I am getting a little tired of being accused by you, Burger. I didn't con anyone, we still have a single target rule in the current wording, even if you do not agree with the rule itself. It is not a con.

Your current suggestions have a number of issues that I was trying to avoid, but to suggest I would ignore what people say about this game, frankly, goes against a great deal of what we have done over the past 5-odd years.

In short, if people want it this way, they can have it. Again, why wouldn't we?

Or we go Option D. Which, incidentally, if you put in the poll, you should not just discount.

 

[H]

True, true. But it's not going to happen. So those who voted D, although we get a realistic impression of how they feel, will have their votes discounted. I have the feeling that if option D wasn't there, B would have been their 2nd choice. That is just speculation though

I voted D. . .

Lol!

and come on Matt, calm down, as I said in my e-mail, people are just frustrated at the stuff. (incidentally I didn't hear back from that last mail, I;m hoping their was nothing in it that offended you)

 

[MongooseMatt]

(incidentally I didn't hear back from that last mail, I;m hoping their was nothing in it that offended you)

No - my apologies, I did not see anything that needed answering! Please get back to me if that was not the case.

 

[H]

no not at all, was just enjoying the chat lol!