Prev: Re: Campaign rules? Next: Re: Why big ships are too good...

Re: dockyards

From: Chad Taylor <ct454792@o...>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 22:53:54 -0500
Subject: Re: dockyards



On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Hal Carmer wrote:

 
> NEW PROPOSAL: this may be used for the FT 3rd edition, or it may be
used
> as an optional rule...
> 
> Negative Damage boxes: it's really a carryover from the FASA game STAR
> TREK, and it involves having a number of boxes beyond the normal
> structural value, that determines the fate of a ship.  Damage equal to
> Structure total does not "destroy" the ship, but has a chance of
> destroying the ship.	Excess damage forces another "explosion" check.
> Example: a ship with 7 structure points takes 7 points of damage.  It
is
> effectively "dead in the vacuum".  Under old rules, the ship blew up
then
> and there.  What I propose doing is this: for turn that the ship takes
> negative structure damage, it must roll 1d6.	If the negative
structure
> damage is equal to or greater than the 1d6 roll, the ship explodes. 
This
> gives the crew a chance to abandon ship.  Also, ships that take damage
in
> excess of normal structural levels, cost more to repair, and take
longer
> to repair.
> 
> Please note: this rule change makes no real difference to the
"tactical"
> feel of the game, but would have repercussions in a strategic game...
> 
> Hal
> 
> 

Another very good idea.  I have watched several fleet encounters and had
thought that the system left something out - the half dead hulks of
destroyed ships drifting in the vacuum.  This idea adds that kind of
feeling nicely.  It also adds a nice way for one race to capture the
remains of an enemy ship for study later on. 

Prev: Re: Campaign rules? Next: Re: Why big ships are too good...