Re: Armored Missiles

Robert A. Crawford writes:

@:) > Joachim Heck writes:
@:) > one PDAF each to the remaining two missiles.  As usual, it's
@:) > never explicitly stated in the rules (and you can make your own
@:) > anyway) that missiles do not move in groups, but I think this is
@:) > implied by the fact that the MT rules always refer to missiles
@:) > in the singular when discussing attacks on them by *DAF.
@:) 
@:)	I've always viewed FT missiles as salvoes of missiles, not
@:) individuals. They seem _huge_ to me, and making them swarms makes
@:) up for that. It also explains why they do so much damage.

  I have always imagined them as being similar to a Harpoon or Exocet
missile, one of which can severely damage or even sink a ship.	Those
are fairly large missiles, but not huge.  A fighter plane can carry
two without a problem.

  As far as the point I was making in my original message, it wasn't
so much about what is represented by a (1) FT missile.	That could be
a single missile or a swarm or anywhere in between.  I was more
concerned with the way missiles and PDAF interact - and I think that
for that each missile should have to be attacked seperately - a PDAF
shouldn't be able to fire at six missiles at once.  So a single
missile would be the equivalent of a fighter group.  If you imagine
that a FT missile is actually a salvo of missiles, that's fine by me
as long as they all get destroyed together when the PDAF rolls a 6.

-joachim