Prev: Re: Poll: HBs and Armour Next: [FT] Unified "to hit" (was: RE: "No Roll to Hit")

RE: "No Roll to Hit"

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:23:03 -0800
Subject: RE: "No Roll to Hit"

>1. Change the -1 per range band  to include the first range band.
>This means that it is very likely to hit, but not impossible to miss.
>Mass/Cost may have to be altered for play balance due to
>decreased range (1 range band).

This is a possibilty.

>2. Roll a die and hit on 4+ (50%). If you use this option, you may
>want to increase the size of the range bands or change mass/cost
>for play balance.
>3. Roll to hit using the P-Torp chart. Again, mass/cost or damage
>may have to be altered for play balance.

As I see, these two options would fundamentally change the intent of HBs
as
written in the EFSB, which is why I've been avoiding it.

It's possible that those without access to the EFSB may be missing this.

My first draft of the HB rules were essentially straight out of the
EFSB.
I've been trying to keep the system balanced while adhering as close as
possible to the original rules.

Schoon

Prev: Re: Poll: HBs and Armour Next: [FT] Unified "to hit" (was: RE: "No Roll to Hit")