Re: [FT] SML's and Banzai Jammers......

Alan,

Why not go with the simple rule of....

for each firecon on the SML firing ship... she can chose her target for
1 
SML salvo.  If the salvo is within 6" of the target ship after movement,

then
it is the target that is locked onto.  So lets recap....

An FSE Jeraz could (assuming no damage) lock both of its SML's (from its

2 launchers) onto 1 or 2 targets of its choice (Written down or in our 
case to speed up play balance we go with option 2 described below and 
hence just allocate after ship movement ).  So if you're flying one of
my 
Free Cal Tex Kenedy class missle cruisers ( 4 SML launchers and only 1 
firecon ...well, you can only lock 1 salvo onto 1 target of your choice 
the other's act as normal ).

Thoughts/options:

(Idea):  each fire con on firing ship allows you to lock onto 1 target
at 
launch
	 if target is within 6", then you hit, otherwise the salvo 
doesn't do
	 anything ( aka wasted... even if other targets are within 6" )
(Opt 2): as the original idea, but with a twist to speed up play and
keep 
some
	 of us from delimbing others in our group.  In this mode rather 
then
	 write down the target we just count up the number of firecon's 
on SML
	 equiped ships and we allocate that many total SML's on the
table 
to
	 targets.  Any other SML's act normally (aka closest target).  
Note
	 though we do this "fast" aka no dilly dallying we don't allow 
you to
	 measure other then yup this salvo is within 6" of this ship 
ect...
	 (we use a template).  That way there's no measuring and trying
to
	 optimise you're firing solution... we just wanted to represent 
the
	 idea that a fleet of ships firing missles would be able to pass

control
	 back and forth and given what we can do now would just allow 
targets
	 to be easily id'ed/painted/whatever...  This is how we play. 
It 
works
	 quite well and keeps the rules lawyers at bay.

We've gone through quite an iteration in play.	After a few lopsided SML

battles and a lot of SML equiped ships proving their various 
vulnrabilities it was decided by our group that.

1.  Fighters are generally better overall expendable munitions
    (last longer, more multifacitited, no hit/miss deal... )
2.  PDS and ADFC can eliminate much of the SML/fighter threat
3.  Speed and manuverability can completely eliminate the SML threat and

do
    an aweful lot to reduce/eliminate the fighter threat (Can still 
escourt though )
4.  Who wants to spend all the mass in SML's and then miss with all of 
them and
    have a handful of wimpy beams to shoot with... can you say toast for

your
    fleet..... knew you could.
5.  Its not realistic in a moderate+ sized fleet that there would be soo

many
    scout ships (especially if they're nothing but ftl and drives!) 
doesn't
    make any sense.  Ships should fit within a fleet doctrin that has a 
balance
    or focal point.  If they're small ships they have to contribute 
firepower
    or something to the fleet.	They also can't be an overly dominate % 
of the
    fleet's pts in less there's a reason
	(1 exception:  we have a campain... 1 player can't build
anything larger
		       then hull size 60.  He tends to build "assult 
scouts"
		       mass 14 sized ships ~50 pts/pop.  They tend to 
dominate
		       his fleet.... we allow this because it fits. )
     Other then that I or another one of our players with a short fuse 
and
     Lots of muscle then mutters something about being needing a
punching 
bag
     ect... as we degenerate into a verision of Polish Full Thrust:  
Kinda like
     warfside polish poker but face hits are legal..... just kidding.  
But the
     majority of my group (3/4 players hate the munchkin approach and 
just want
     to have fun... we don't want any lopsided victories because of 
balance
     issues.  We found our option 2 to be the best way to make SML's a 
weapon
     you'd want to put on your ships.  So far we have the following
fleet
     strategies...

(Cinematic movement.  Decent size table... speeds range from 6" -> 24"
in 
most of our games... every once in a while we play at 30+" speeds )

1.  Beams & Screens (avg hull) fleets
2.  Pulse Torps & scrn-1 + armor + strong hull (big ships only) fleets
3.  SML's to the gills & weak hull + avg manver fleets

*Usually we do normal fleet book levels of pds/ship but add adfc to 
anything
 larger then a light cruiser (Great for SML/fighter defense)
*So far option 2 has been battling out with option 1 as the most common
 it seems just when we're all ensconced in (2), we decide the ability to

hit
 better at range pushes (1) ahead and then we flip around.
*We usually don't go all fighters.  Usually only in larger fleet battles

do
 we find fighters flying around and usually they stick to the fighting 
escourts
 (DD's go boom quick against 2 ftr groups).  However the big guys
usually 
have
 too many pds and adfc pds that they're not worth targeting.
*option 3 is not all that common.  Usually we start at speeds 12-16
range 
or
 so.  If anyone is on option 3 then everyone usualy speeds up and trys
to 
 stay at range.

Anyway....... just some thoughts from our group.  Give option 2 a try.	
It makes SML's the way (we think) they should be.... nasty and visious
in 
the right conditions for a couple o'rounds... then whoops.... you shot 
your load you nasty boy... now time to squeal like a pig .........

Chuck