Prev: RE: [OT] Stupid Military Terminology Question Next: RE: [OT] Stupid Military Terminology Question

RE: FT/MT vs FB

From: "Wasserman, Kurt" <wasku01@m...>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 15:38:23 -0500
Subject: RE: FT/MT vs FB

Mark,

MT has valuable info in it on the other races.	FT has valuable rules
and
such.  MT fleshes out the Kra'Vak and Savasku and gives you an idea
where
they are in the scheme of things.  Ruleswise, it is always good to know
how
your enemy's weapon systems work. <G>  Both are valuable to have, in my
opinion...

As for fleets, I personally use the "Rag-Tag, Fugitive Fleet"
method(tm).  I
have scattered minis from several systems including but not limited to
B5
Wars, Traveller-New Era, Star Blazers.	I buy ships that I like to look
at
and like modifying and like painting.  Currently, my "human" ships have
been
pressed into service as Kra'vak using the Kra'vak stats.  

Remember, YOU are the one that has to look at your minis more than
anyone.
<G>

-=Kr'rt

> ----------
> From: 	nemesice@interlog.com[SMTP:nemesice@interlog.com]
> 
> Could someone in the know please elaborate for me? Is it worth it to
go
> get
> MT if I should really just be getting the FB's? 
> 
> With regards to the fleets... Do people tend to pick a fleet and play
it
> per doctrine or do they use the mini's and design their own stats? I
like
> some mini's from this fleet and some from that one. 
> 


Prev: RE: [OT] Stupid Military Terminology Question Next: RE: [OT] Stupid Military Terminology Question