Re: General EMP Thoughts

>From Schoon:

>The same EMP weapon hits an SC and an SDN, causing blanket threshold 
> rolls on both. What is it's point value?

For the scout it's almost a nil or kill effect. For the SDN it's
substantially higher than nil, but never close to a kill. Plus and SDN
stands a much better chance of a) healing the EMP damage, and b)
Preventing
further EMP attacks.

>>(Oerjan)If you nail the list down hard enough that there's nothing to
argue
>>about, it'll still take almost forever to evaluate, only the rule's
>>author will be completely happy about it, and the list will *not* be
>>simple. Noam and Beth have already pointed out some of the reasons why
>>this is so, so I won't repeat them here.

>Not true: I've seen several simple, short lists that look perfectly
acceptable.

Acceptable if you want to blur the line between a threshold weapon and a
needle weapon. The short simple lists Perhaps Dean's and BIF's recent
lists
are OK for a "strictly defined" EMP weapon a la Richard Bell, but that
over-restricts the "threshold weapon" mechanic, which is what the MT EMP
missile introduced, and what the Scrambler Pulse, for example tries to
translate to Direct fire.

>From Beth:

 >>(Noam)Having the target choosing
 >>the order is very un-needlish, and probably
 >>more balancing for EMP attacks. This last
 >>is becoming my favored method for "limited
 >>check" EMP weapons.

>I'm obviously in a difficult mood this week as I just don't see the 
>distinction, but ignore me I'll agree to disagree on this one.

Probability. For limited checks, I as the target will pick the systems
least
likely to affect me during the scenario first (i. e. Fighter bays of
launched fighters, PDS in a non fighter/missile game, class 1's, off arc
weapons, FTL, etc). If I only have to knock off two systems, I'
m hoping that probability will hit early rather than late. Of course it
may
not, and I may have to lose that 3-arc Class 3 beam, or a firecon, but I
try
to "shield" those with my earlier choices. 

In other words, if I only have to nix one system, every system I choose
instead of my firecon reduces the chance of having to lose it by (on
average) 1/6 (for thresh 1). If the attacker chooses the firecon first,
then
it's got a straight 1/6 chance of going away - just like a needle.

> >Most people can, after a few games,
>>roll thresholds on even big ships pretty quickly...

>I agree, but I still think that a simple designation system and rolling
a 
>few dice will be MUCH quicker ;)

I'll give you that. As long as it's "defender chooses", I can live with
it.

Then Donogh suggested:
> >Attacker chooses one system,
> >Defender chooses two systems,
> >D6 = 5, 6 : Systems chosen are taken out.
> >It's simple: only one roll, no bookeeping....

> Noam probably won't go for this, but of all the compromises called for

> today I like it the most. It captures Noam (and others) "defender
chooses"

> preference as well as giving the firer some chance of knocking out the

> thing they really wanted to get rid of in the first place.

You're right, I still don't like it. If the attacker wants to take out
specific systems, they should be using needles, not threshold weapons.
Eventually we'll have a WotW on the needle missiles/fighters/Heavy
Needle
beam, etc, but that's not, or IMO shouldn't be, the mechanic we deal
with
here.

>From Laserlight:
>  >Actually, I don't really care which way it
>  >goes, as long as it's simple and well defined.

>Roll 1 die:  On 1-3, no effect;  4-5, all systems down for 1 turn; 6,
>all systems are down for 2 turns.

Well, it's simple, I'll give you that. I'd be fine with it if the target
counldn't take damage while it was out of comission.... Now there's an
idea.
Something like a Stasis Gun (or missile).