Re: [Ft} OU & IC & FB3

Alan Brain wrote:

>>Problem here. Brendan Pratt doesn't design any custom ships >>(unless
he's begun doing so in the last half year), so he can simply >>reduce
the points costs of the published ships by 15%. The rest of >>us can't
do that - we have to reduce the cost of some specific >>Kra'Vak
components instead. But which ones, and by how much?
> 
>I think the KV are balanced in vector. So a straight 10-15% discount
>across the board wouldn't be too bad when playing Cinematic.

You seem to miss the point. Brendan can implement a straight-off 10-15%
discount *because he does not use custom-designed ships*. According to
his own words he uses the published FBx ships exclusively. In
particular, he doesn't mix KV tech with tech from other races.

However, some players do mix "alien" technologies. Look at Paul
Radford's UNSC designs, for example - humans with a smattering of
K-guns. I haven't published my "Renegade Legion: Leviathan" conversions
anywhere, but they are even worse: human screens and missiles combined
with Phalon layered armour and pulsers, and Kra'Vak K-guns (for the
crowbars). I've seen some designs (sorry, don't remember where) with
Advanced Drives on otherwise human-tech ships; I've toyed with
re-working my "Eldar-ish" fleet along these lines as well, but haven't
had time to do it yet.

So, to re-phrase my question: If you use a straight cost reduction for
"Kra'Vak" ships, how exactly do you define "Kra'Vak" for the purpose of
giving this discount?

Would any of the mixed-tech ships mentioned above count as "Kra'Vak"?
How much "non-KV" tech may a ship have in order to count as "Kra'Vak"
and get the discount? Answering "None" means that you explicitly
penalise players for not adhering strictly to the canon GZG background
- which, given its strong GW marketting flavour, is something I'd
really prefer to avoid.

Another problem with a flat 10-15% rebate for KV ships is that a KV
"soap-bubble" carrier with no K-guns and minimal engines would cost
only about 90% as much (not counting the cost of the fighters
themselves) as a human carrier with the same hull and fighter force,
but which replaces the KV ship's scatterguns and advanced drives with
less effective PDS and normal drives. In this case there's no question
of the KV ship getting the rebate - it uses KV tech systems only - but
it doesn't sound as a very good idea from the game balance point of
view.

>>>Close range set pulsers only yield 4d6.
> 
>>We've fought a dozen battles on fixed 4'x8' tables pitting FB1 fleets
>>against "all-C" Phalon forces now, and the Phalons have *still* lost
>>every one of them... Brendan never described what tactics the
>>Phalons use to keep the range close (nor what tactics their
>>opponents have tried to prevent them from closing), so I still don't
>>know what we're doing wrong locally :-(
> 
>Or what *we're* doing wrong locally. maybe we're missing something
>obvious that your group has seen.

We have a lot more training in countering custom designs, but that's
about all I can think of straight off.

>Maybe a PBEM game would be in order here? No need for actual >combat,
just manouvering.

There's definitely a need for actual combat in such a battle. We don't
keep the range open *indefinitely*; only for *long enough* - namely,
long enough to destroy or cripple so many Phalon ships that the enemy
outguns them (usually massively) when they finally do get close. It's
kinda hard to determine how long "long enough" is unless you do the
shooting  :-/ 

>>>d) Rules: What rules do we need: MT missiles, for sure. Anything
>>>else?

>>and boarding combat
> 
>Yes - maybe use the SuVasku Leech mechanics,

The boarding party trying to smash up the target ship instead of
capturing it? Schoon's rules, or some variation thereof, seem more
appropriate to me.

>>and cleared-up fighter rules (currently
>>they're spread out over all five books...).
> 
>Yes. No need for any changes, just a consolidation.

Some of the currently published fighter rules contradict each other and
others (the launch rules in particular) currently don't work very well,
so
*some* changes are probably not out of place :-/

>Things we can leave till FT3?
> 
>Campaigns
>Ground Interface
>Terrain
>Debris
>Striking colours (suggest a check every turn at last hull box and get
>damaged - score must equal the number of hull boxes left, but a 6
>always fails)

"Last hull ROW and get damaged", no?

>Painting guide

Why? Smells of GW again :-(

>Sources of Minis.

Any "Sources of Minis" list will be out of date the minute it leaves
the printers, but it's a good way to indicate that "you DON'T need to
use the official (tm) Full Thrust minitatures for playing this game"
:-/

>OK, next question:
> 
>Assuming we have FB3 consisting of
>USNC
>IC
>OU
>FSC

FSC?

Regards, 

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