Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]

In a message dated 96-12-11 15:34:18 EST, you write:

> Hell. I'd buy FT-III (Although the name FT-II plus (or gold) would
>  sound better) anyway. My copy of FT is getting to look a little
>  'well used' if you know what I mean.
> 
Adam has hit the nail on the head here.  Now be honest, how many of us
would
by a new copy of FT even if it was just FT and MT together in one book
with
just the typos removed.  I know I would (assuming it GW priced of
course).
 It would be worth it just so the two damn books weren't always on
opposite
sides of the table and under separate beer bottles.  Hell, I'd buy the
thing
just to put money in Jon's pocket.  
 .
>  I'd like to see a new Full Thrust, but I'd like it to be more of the
>  same, rather than a complete rewrite. I think my resistance to the
>  initial idea was more to do with the fear of major revisions than
>  actually not wanting a better game. Provided the core rules remain
>  largely unchanged, I'll be happy with FT-III, even if the Advanced
>  rules are changed beyond recognition. (I hardly use MT anyway).
>  I'll probably have to redo all my playsheets though 8-(
>  

The thing's I'd like to see are a set of firing rules that use the FMA
system.  I think that with a little work a set could be devised that are
clean, quick, and elegant.  The opportunity to include crew quality,
variable
target sizes, etc would make for very interesting gaming.  To me, the
core of
FT is the plotted movement system and the Threshold checks.  The present
combat system is virtually completely separate from those elements and
could
easily be replaced by an optional FMA system.  Other than that, the only
other things are gadgets, which are not really a big deal since everyone
comes up with their own anyway (I've doubled the number of weapon
systems we
use, but most people still rely on beam batteries), and fixes for a few
of
the glaring problems.  I don't see the beam battery issue as all that
great a
problem, although we did install a per arc mass system for our games.  I
disagree with those who want a more detailed construction system, since
in my
experience, the more detailed the system,  the more room for rules
lawyers
and min-maxers.  With the current system even the min-maxed ships (mass
36
cruisers, etc) are still easily defeated if the captain doesn't fly them
right.	The only thing's needed for construction are a few point and
mass
tweaks, which again most people have already done anyway.

Just my thoughts

Brian

PS  I'm going to play a full game playtest of my set of FMA rules
tonight.
 I'll post a synopsis later