RE: [FT] WotW 2: EMP Weapons

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oerjan Ohlson [SMTP:oerjan.ohlson@telia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:41 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: [FT] WotW 2: EMP Weapons
> 
> Slowly catching up with this thread:
> 
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> 
> >Ion Pulse Weapon (IPW)
> [snip]
> 
> IME the above mechanics work fine on their own; no need to have a
> specified order in which to check for systems - unless of course your
> opponent is dishonest enough that you can't trust him even in normal
> threshold checks (in which case I wouldn't want to play against him
> anyway!). Sure, the defender is going to check for the least important
> systems first - but unless the ship is already badly damaged, he isn't
> all that likely to actually lose the first few systems he checks for.
> 
> Of course the value of the weapon goes down if the defender chooses
> freely instead of sticking to Brian's list, but that's "only" a matter
> of adjusting the Mass or Cost of the weapon appropriately.
> 
[Bri] True. I will concede the point. Allow target ship's player to
choose
order. Following the thread, I would not even care if weapons were taken
out
of the mix. But I would like to see engines, screens, and FCS stay in
the
mix. I think that IPW weapons would be a favorite for Pirates, as the
systems/ships are not destroyed, but only disabled.

> >As with a Wave Gun, a ship may not be screened in the arc through
> >which it fires a IPW (but other arcs may be screened).
> 
> I *don't* like this. Don't like it for the WG/NC either, though.
> 
[Bri] OK. Drop the partial screen loss.

> >Stealing the idea from Noam:
> >IPW may be fired in PDS mode with a range of 6mu by de-focusing >the
> pulse. Any fighters in the arc of effect may not attack this round
>and
> loose 1 point of endurance. Missiles/Pods/Plasma are effected >the
same
> as if a number of PDS equal to the class of the IPW had >fired at
them.
> 
> 
> Which means that a single IPW can work as a potentially infinite
number
> of PDSs, each with its own private ADFC. The potential risk to
friendly
> ships is far, far smaller than the potential benefit.
> 
[Bri] I did not think of it in those terms. Also, I did not think about
it
combining with normal PDS. So drop this aspect as well.

> **********************
> 
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> 
> >EMP Missile Salvoes (EMP-SM)
> 
> [snip - I've already discussed this with Charles both on- and
off-list,
> though it was some time ago]
> 
> >We need to decide whether Phalon Vapour shrouds have the effect of
> >level-2 screens against these or not, the PSB (water/ice mist) would
> >seem to imply not, but it might be better if they did work.
> 
> Keep it simple. The rules say that "A deployed shroud acts like a
> level-2 screen against all energy weapon attacks, ...", so unless you
> describe the EMP pulse as not being energy <g> or the SM-EMP rule is
> *very* emphatic that the shrouds don't work against it they should
work
> against it. (And even if the rule *is* very emphatic many of the
> players will miss that and count shrouds as level-2 screens anyway...)
> 
[Bri] So Pulse Torpedos are not energy weapons (ala Photon Torpedos)?
The
rules do not describe the P-Torp, so I guess it depends on the PSB you
choose.

>  
[snip]

> Later,
> 
> Oerjan Ohlson
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
-----End Original Message-----

My comments above marked by [Bri]

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org