Prev: Re: EF Sourcebook FT questions Next: Re: Adam Delafield ship design

Re: EF Sourcebook and Interceptors.

From: jon@g... (Ground Zero Games)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 19:19:43 +0000
Subject: Re: EF Sourcebook and Interceptors.

>I didn't know Jay Leno's chin had such magical powers. wrote:
>
>> Hello All:
>>	   After reading part of the ship combat rules from the EF
>> Sourebook at my
>> local game store, I discovered a slight technical error.  Arrording
to
>>
>> George Johnson and JMS, EA interceptors have the ability to protect
>> against energy beam weapons.  Besides shooting down incoming pulse
>> cannon bolts, they project an energy dampening field that weakens
>> lasers
>> and particle beam weapons.  (PSB level high.)  Jon's rules don't
>> account
>> for this field in his rules.
>>	   That's OK!  It can be easily fixed.	For each active
>> interceptor set
>> for defense, subject 1 from each each beam weapon dice rolled.
>> Problem
>> solved.
>>
>
>Personally I would love to dump the energy web concept, it was just a
>naff statement to cover and sfx screwup.I actually think that the Pulse
>cannon armament of the Pollux in Face of the Enemy was a much more
>reasonable rear armament for the Omegas, still it appears to be canon
>now (no pun intended)....AOG use it sooooo.....
>
>Regards......

This is yet another of those cases where the internal consistency of the
show is doubtful when it comes down to technical detail (hell, you can't
really blame them, it is all for dramatic effect anyway). IMHO Roger is
right, the "energy web" was a bit of after-the-fact PSB to "explain
away"
the events and dialogue in the Alexander/Clarkstown engagement in
"Severed
Dreams". I discussed this at length with the guys at CE/WF while doing
the
draft rules, and in the end the majority decision was to ignore the
supposed effects of interceptors on beam weapons for game play reasons.
If
anyone wants to go with the suggestion that Mark made above, then it
sounds
as good a way as any.

Jon (GZG)

Prev: Re: EF Sourcebook FT questions Next: Re: Adam Delafield ship design