Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]
From: Rick Rutherford <rickr@s...>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:25:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]
I can think of 7 problems with Full Thrust that have been discussed
on this list for the past 2 years:
1) Re-balance the A, B and C beams.
2) Kra'vaak and Sa'vaksu rules need a serious re-write if they're
going to be "balanced" with human technology. I think that this would
put a serious strain on the points system, and it seems to me that the
obvious solution is to discard the idea of balancing them with human
ship technology at all. A general guideline would work for me
(e.g. "You need at least a 2-to-1 advantage in ships of equal size to
take on a Kra'vaak force", or something like that).
2.1) An aside: Every time I have used Sa'vaksu ships in a scenario,
they just melted like so much alien goo. In my experience, they're
2.2) Another aside: The Kra'vaak scatterpack has got to go.
3) Needle beams are far too weak to be useful, as are EMP missiles.
If nobody's going to use these systems, why include them at all?
4) Pay-as-you-build fighters: you want a fast, long-range interceptor?
All you have to do is pay the points.
5) AEGIS fire control & other new systems.
6) Campaign rules.
7) Fleet book.
So far, nobody has said "These aren't problems", rather, they've said
"We have a house rule to deal with that". It would be nice to see these
problems solved in a "Full Thrust Companion" or something like that.
The most attractive idea I've seen so far is to have a hardback book
containing the rules from both Full Thrust and More Thrust, along with
whatever new stuff Jon publishes but the printing bill for hardback
can be enormous, and there's no guarantee that it would sell enough
to make a profit.
I'd be the first in line to buy it, though!
Rick Rutherford email@example.com The above opinions are mine.
"It seems to me that the nearer painting approaches sculpture the better
it is, and that sculpture is the worse the nearer it approaches