Nomad said:
Storey, I do recall seeing SVC's 'list of regrets', IIRC including, amongst other things, the Jindarians, the Positron Flywheel, the Ion Cannon and the Temporal Elevator.
The Gatling was not on that list. I'd remember if it was.
The Gat has been in the SFU since 1980. SFB E 2.15 describes it as it as 'a particularly vicious weapon' and that's from my copy of Commanders' Edition, vintage 1983.
If SVC had wanted to change it, he's had ample opportunity.
At this point, it's not so straightforward.
For one thing, SPP is the current lead designer for
SFB; SVC still runs
FC,
F&E,
Star Fleet Marines etc., though SVC retains the final prerogative on decisions concerning the SFU as a whole.
For another, there is a lot of momentum (or, perhaps, inertia) behind the current set of rules among the active
SFB community, to a far greater extent than what you may find among the
FC fanbase. When the suggestion came up that some of the ideas which emerged in
FC might be worth considering in
SFB itself (such as doubling the move cost for going in reverse, or eliminating the superstack), the outcry on the BBS was quite vocal, enough to bury the idea pretty much outright.
For good or ill, the kind of rules flexibility which is in play for the younger games like
FC and
ACtA:SF is essentially off the table for
SFB (at least in the Alpha Octant), so that game is more or less stuck with the current rules for things like superstacks, movement costs... and phaser-Gs.
But that does not mean that the newer games should be similarly ossified so readily.
-----
Look, it's one thing to feel passionate about an empire you're emotionally (and financially) invested in; we're all here because we care about the universe, even if our specific focus can vary from one area to another.
But at this point, none of us are in a position to place any authority on our ideas. For all we know, Matthew has his own set of concepts he's come up with in order to handle the Hydrans (and their Stingers); and even those would still need to be revised, playtested, revised again, and ultimately rubber-stamped by ADB before they can be formally published.
With that in mind, it's probably not worth getting too deeply into the heat of the argument right now, when there'll be plenty of time to dig into the "real" rules when the first batch of playtest materials start to surface in public.
Of course, that might sound a bit rich from a guy who finds it hard to ever shut up about all things non-Alpha; but even with those, I'm all too aware that until (or unless) any of those get the nod at some future point, there's not a whole lot I can do other than post my ideas and hope at least some of them help if/when the time is ripe.
-----
So, for what it's worth (i.e. not much of anything, really), I still think carriers should be forced to pay for their fighters. It'd make setting the point costs of the ships easier, and allow for scenarios where ships are dragged into action before they have been able to replenish their fighter squadrons. (It's cleaner to have the base cost and not add the fighters, than to have the "full" cost and have to cut back down for each affected ship.)
And I'm still not too sure about Dodge; but what if direct-fire weapons lost the Accurate Trait when shooting at fighters instead? That would make it that much more awkward for ships to try and phaser down enemy fighters at long range, while putting a premium on using drones or other weapon types (which can be targeted via defensive fire before they impact). Plus it would be a blanket rule for all fighters, and thus avoiding the need to work out which Dodge score would be appropriate for which class of attack craft. (There is no equivalent value for fighters in
SFB, and fighters in
NA don't always have a direct correlation between their Dogfight and Dodge scores.)
