Re: [FT] WotW #7 Holofields
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:06:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT] WotW #7 Holofields
In message <3.0.5.32.20010425224311.00850240@mail.HICom.net>
Aaron Teske <ateske@HICom.net> wrote:
>
> I don't *think* you meant to only reply to me, so all your text is
included
> here....
I did? (checks out-box) - oh yes, must have hit wrong button - sorry!
>
[snip]
>
> >Hmm... one minor thing I think was missed - Torp fighters - negates
> >rolls of 4 anyone? (i.e. vs. holofield torp fighters miss on 1-4, do
5
> >dp on a 5, and 6 dp on a 6) - or -1 to torpedo dice (miss on 1-4, 4
dp
> >on a 5, 5 dp on a 6)?
>
> I think you meant "miss on 1-3, 3 dp on a 4,..." but since the intent
is to
> affect "to hit" only, and leave damage at full, I'd say rolls of 4
miss
> while 5 & 6 score full damage.
Yes, that is what I _meant_ - I think I was having a bad day :-|
I personally prefer the 'rolls of 4 miss, 5 & 6 score full damage' as
well - the proportional reduction in damage is closer to that of level
1 screens.
[snip]
> >
> >Alternatively count the holofield as an extra PDS vs. each
> >missile/salvo?
>
> Hmm, an automatic 1 PDS per salvo? Dunno, other people's opinions...?
I proposed it as an easy way of having a general 'holofield vs. missile'
effect that applied to all missiles. It may be a bit too powerful -
depends how good you are at rolling PDS dice - probably worth rather
more to you than to me :-)
Alternatively we use your suggestion, and reduce the missiles 'lock on'
range - this again can be applied as a general rule for all missiles
(well, almost all).
[snip again]
> >The latter set of values are the 'high tech' version.
>
> But setting the actual points cost is more Oerjan's turf. ^_- He's
the
> weapons-master number cruncher.... <grin>
Yup - but I _think_ that my values are about right :-)
>
> >One thing I missed from my summary, IIRC it was decided that
holofields
> >are incompatible with screens and vapour shrouds (i.e. you can have
more
> >than one such system working at once).
>
> Er, *can't*. Correct, and that was incorporated from the beginning.
> (Well, for screens anyway, there were no vapor shrouds at the
time....)
>
> Aaron
Oops - another typo - yes I meant to say 'can't'.