Re: Comments on various designs...

Jeff Lyon wrote:

> <mucho snippage>
> 
> >Of course, this all leads up to my own Catoism: FB Hull should only
> >cost 1xMass, Armour should cost 2xMass <G>
> 
> I remember you mentioning this once before and it made a lot of sense

> to me in terms of play balance.  But as I recall, you shied away from
it 
> since it would invalidate all the current FB designs.

It won't invalidate them - they'd still be legal designs once their
NPVs are adjusted. It just makes several of them rather sub-optimal
designs :-/ 

OTOH, many of those that are sub-optimal now - the ESU Manchuria family
of designs, for example - would start making a lot more sense... I
guess it evens out, though experienced FB players will probably have to
relearn how to design effective ships <g>
 
> Seems to me that it would just reduce the NPV's by 1 point per hull
box.
> If this were a rule change that Jon and playtesting teams wanted to
> implement, then it would seem that FB2 would be a good time to do it.
> Couldn't the revised costs be listed as errata in the new book?

Guess why I keep repeating it <G>
 
Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry