Prev: Re: Underwater questions [ot] Next: [FT] Who said Nova cannon's were unbalanced?

Re: Comments on Independent Antarctics

From: Michael Petska <petska@g...>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 17:05:40 -0600
Subject: Re: Comments on Independent Antarctics

At 09:01 AM 11/4/99 +1000, you wrote:
>>> Erebus Arsenalship: Ha... hm. Design is legal (assuming Superior
>>> ECM), but 2 P-torps *and* beams, and only one single FC?
>> 
>>...to which you said "It works". Well, yes, but it can't fire all its
>>weapons in a single turn under the published rules :-/
>
>Didn't St^3 Jon clarify that one already? And the guys here have
decided to
>play that way anyway as the p-torp is really just a big gun not a
guided
>weapon (its an energy discharge and thus should be comparable to beam
>weapons not missles, calling it a torpedo is a bit of a misnomer in my
>opinion its really more like a cannon I would've thought).

Has there been an official change in the Targeting rules for P-torps?

May Reason and Logic be with you, always...	Mike Petska
						       petska@gpcom.net


Prev: Re: Underwater questions [ot] Next: [FT] Who said Nova cannon's were unbalanced?