Prev: FT scenarios Next: Airbrushing Chronicles Part II

MT missiles and point costs

From: Adrian Reen-Shuler <saltpeanuts73@y...>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: MT missiles and point costs

> That's mainly because the weapons are balanced for
> the standard (ie,
> Cinematic) movement rules rather than the very
> optional Vector rules.
> The two systems have rather different balance
> requirements; *all*
> multi-arc weapons are somewhat overmassed in Vector
> due to the relative
> ease of keeping the enemy in the fire arcs of your
> choice.

Then has anyone come up with a suggested revised point
cost for Vector ships? Or just a revised mass cost for
arcs?  

I find it interesting you view the Vector rules as
"very optional".  I loved it when they came out, they
give the game a very "spacey" (as in outer space, not
empty headed) feel, that had previously only been
imparted by the miniatures we played with.

Ships in the cinematic rules always seemed more like
armed speedboats than spaceships.

Is vector going to become "official" and standard at
any point?

> A missile (EMP or nuke) hits a previously undamaged
> ship of a
> particular
> design (published in FB1, BTW). If the missile
> carries a nuclear
> warhead, it will on average knock out 14% of the
> target's systems
> through standard threshold checks (and inflict quite
> a bit of armour
> and hull damage as well, usually starting on the 2nd
> row of hull
> boxes), while an EMP warhead would knock out on
> average 19% of the
> systems but leave the armour and hull undamaged. 
> 
> 1) Which of the two missiles would you consider to
> be "more potent"
> against this ship design? Would you consider that
> missile to be "vastly
> more potent" than the other?

your quite correct, vs. ships with less than 30 or so
DP the nuclear missles are going to be more effective.


I was really speaking vs. large SD's (200-300 DP). 
The 2d6 damage isn't going to get you a threshold
check versus a ship this large.  

MT missiles are only something we've deployed on large
ships for use en mass, as they never seemed very
effective employed in small numbers (kinda like SM's
in that respect).  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Prev: FT scenarios Next: Airbrushing Chronicles Part II