Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Forbidden Stars» Forums » Rules

Subject: Orbital Strikes and diagonals rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Frank Calcagno
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My FS copy is arriving tomorrow, but I am reading the rules before it arrives so my Marines are ready for the go order...
Question (refer to the Advance Order Example in the rules, page 11). Orbital strikes happen with ships in the active system in a void "that is ADJACENT to this world." Regardless of combat or occupancy from this example, looking at the green planet (page 11) where the Scout is moving to (in example step 5), by definition of adjacency there is no void adjacent to this world. Does that mean this specific planet is totally immune to Orbital Strikes in any way, shape, or form?
(Is that thematically valid?)

Would an Orbital Strikes definition be better worded as "by any ships in a void of an active system..."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Kaemmer
United States
Iowa City
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You had it right the first time. Only adjacent planets. Corner planets in 3 planet systems are effectively immune to bombardment. Also the planet must be occupied by an opponent (unit or structure).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niko
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
[This space intentionally left blank]
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
As much as people complain about FFG rulebooks, in my experience the wording is quite precise. If it says adjacent then it means adjacent, and will most likely clarify somewhere if diagonal counts or not (it doesn't in this game)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Calcagno
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, I totally agree. The wording cannot be clearer, and you are completely correct in your interpretation. When I play the game, I will faithfully follow this rule because that is how it is written. Adjacent is very adequately defined, as is orbital strike. (Plus, please believe me, I am not bashing the wording or presentation of the rule book; I personally love their presentation.)
But what I am asking is what is the physical manifestation they are conveying with this rule, specifically regarding Orbital Strikes in 3-planet systems? In other words, a rule is meant to simulate reality.
Yes, a chain of ships from point A to B through a void means the player's convoy of ships provided transportation to the invading force. Two skulls on a planet banner represents the carrying capacity of the planet's environment. A planet producing a forge is providing the owner some sort of mineral resource allowing that to happen. Everything in FS makes sense to me, and beautifully presented, BTW. The mechanics of this game is what drew me to it.
But, I think the developers designed themselves into a corner (no pun intended) when they included 3-planet systems and retained the concept of adjacent = a flat edge. I ask you to consider: what is being simulated when you are allowed to conduct an Orbital Strike against any planet in a 2-planet system, but you physically cannot strike a planet hidden in the corner of a 3-planet system. (What is the physical mechanism being simulated in that case?) The only answer I can come up with is that 4 abstracted corners will not allow that planet to be struck from space because of the rules, and that exception was not identified in the play test.
Believe it or not, I am not trying to argue with if the rule interpretation is right or wrong...the interpretation is absolutely correct, and the wording is clear enough; but the design is contradicting the physical universe in this one case. (IMO)

If an invading force cannot "reach" that planet to throw ordinance at it from orbit, then what allows that same force to establish an orbit to land marines? It is a physical oddity. A contradiction of reality. Having said that, I will give up my argument, and will not post about this any more... I'm just asking if anyone can rationally explain what this rule simulates. Good gaming to everyone...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niko
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
[This space intentionally left blank]
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Antares Rangers wrote:
Yes, I totally agree. The wording cannot be clearer, and you are completely correct in your interpretation. When I play the game, I will faithfully follow this rule because that is how it is written. Adjacent is very adequately defined, as is orbital strike. (Plus, please believe me, I am not bashing the wording or presentation of the rule book; I personally love their presentation.)
But what I am asking is what is the physical manifestation they are conveying with this rule, specifically regarding Orbital Strikes in 3-planet systems? In other words, a rule is meant to simulate reality.
Yes, a chain of ships from point A to B through a void means the player's convoy of ships provided transportation to the invading force. Two skulls on a planet banner represents the carrying capacity of the planet's environment. A planet producing a forge is providing the owner some sort of mineral resource allowing that to happen. Everything in FS makes sense to me, and beautifully presented, BTW. The mechanics of this game is what drew me to it.
But, I think the developers designed themselves into a corner (no pun intended) when they included 3-planet systems and retained the concept of adjacent = a flat edge. I ask you to consider: what is being simulated when you are allowed to conduct an Orbital Strike against any planet in a 2-planet system, but you physically cannot strike a planet hidden in the corner of a 3-planet system. (What is the physical mechanism being simulated in that case?) The only answer I can come up with is that 4 abstracted corners will not allow that planet to be struck from space because of the rules, and that exception was not identified in the play test.
Believe it or not, I am not trying to argue with if the rule interpretation is right or wrong...the interpretation is absolutely correct, and the wording is clear enough; but the design is contradicting the physical universe in this one case. (IMO)

If an invading force cannot "reach" that planet to throw ordinance at it from orbit, then what allows that same force to establish an orbit to land marines? It is a physical oddity. A contradiction of reality. Having said that, I will give up my argument, and will not post about this any more... I'm just asking if anyone can rationally explain what this rule simulates. Good gaming to everyone...
In most games I'd be right there with you, but we are literally talking about a universe here were chainswords are a thing, guns fire RPG projectiles while dudes wear armour that can withstand aforementioned projectiles, human sacrifices are fed through a semi-dead guy to allow ships to navigate, deamons are real, which leads to some guys locking souls away in crystals to prevent them from interacting with said deamons, an entire race reproduces via spores while their collective beliefs makes their red vehicles go faster and their yellow bumbs have bigger explosions (not to mention that painting themselves purple makes them sneakier), soldiers will often run into combat without helmets, potentially because their pauldrons are big enough to still protect the head, and this is barely scratching the surface of the absurdity of it all
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Calcagno
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Very good, Niko, I like that. Yes, I can actually see some great strategic planning involved because of that rule. I appreciate all the great responses to my question. This game will be one of the treasures of my collection.
Cheers, all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Kaemmer
United States
Iowa City
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For thematic interpretations, there could be other celestial bodies making it difficult to get near the system with large cruisers, or even defensive infrastructure.

I don't remember exactly, but I think all or almost all of the 3 planet systems are home-systems. Not unreasonable to think they have special defense grids or such in place to defend against bombardment and direct invasion.

You could also imagine the planet being nestled deep in an asteroid field, maybe it's orbiting really fast, or has dozens of moons in a low orbit. Try shooting a planet when you need to avoid getting smashed by a bunch of moons! Maybe the one planet is orbiting the other.

Idk, just stretching my imagination.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zoltán Dudás
Hungary
flag msg tools
I would also go with the orbital defenses or something similar.
Remember that its not just the orbital bombardment that it is practically immune to. You also cant create a legal path and drop to the middle (corner) planet directly going from this void area. For the ground units you need one of the adjacent worlds first to make a legal path there.

So effectively the planets on both sides enclose it and you have to create a foothold on one of the "fringe" worlds before being able to advance further in-system.
As 3 planet tiles are hometiles this is a reasonable explanation to me, while not being super precise.


Enjoy your game! It suuuper awesome
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.