Re: Classed Weapons

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> You may want to consider that this quote comes from the FT2 rule book,

> which was published in 1992. That's eleven years ago, and it hasn't 
> been updated since. By that time Jon had no idea how big a success 
> Full Thrust would be, or what table sizes people would use to play it.

> You should also consider that the largest beam weapon available in 
> basic FT2 was the "A" battery, which had a max range of 36 mu - ie., 
> corresponding to the current Class-3 battery.
>
> Fleet Book 1 was published in 1998. By that time we had a better idea 
> of what table sizes people were actually using, and because we did we 
> wrote that the FB1 ship design system accordingly.

Then I would have suggested adding something like:

"Although a 4'x6' area is workable, we have found that the game, 
especially with the new design system, plays better with a larger 
maneuver area.	We suggest either using 1 MU = 1 cm on 4'x6' or an area 
larger than 4'x6' if using 1 MU = 1".  In the latter case, at least 60 
[or 70 or whatever] MU in each direction is recommended."

> "...on your normal size of table." is the continuation of that 
> sentence. Note "YOUR normal size", not "THE normal size". No 
> implication that 4'x6' is the "standard" here.
>
> (In fact, since I was one of those who made Jon put this section into 
> FB2 this particular sentence refers in no small part to my own old 
> gaming table - which was a mere 2'8" x 4' in size :-/ 2'8" x 4' is ~ 
> 80 x 120 cm, which allows plenty of high-speed manoeuvres since I 
> measure in cm. That's the very reason why I started to measure in cm 
> in the first place :-/ ) 

But without explicitly stating a change, a reader can presume a 
continuation of the previous conditions.

> Of course, since FB2 *vector* allows you to use your entire main drive

> rating for rotations and pushes, my example was perfectly correct :-)
>
> (If you read the second FB2 vector example carefully, you'll note that

> it describes a thrust-4 ship making 2 rotations, 1 side thruster burn,

> and a 1-pt MD burn.)

Since my group does not play vector, I had not noticed.

However, I would point out that no matter what the * intentions * were, 
what is actually written does not state that maneuver can consume the 
ship's entire thrust allotment (although it can be read that way if one 
wishes because it does not limit it either).  Since this is a deviation 
from prior FT traditions, I would have continued with the "standard 
drives get 1/2 thrust for maneuvering" limitation common to both 
cinematic and FB1 vector without your making this point to me.	Has Mr. 
Tuffley ever made a statement about it, or is this just common 
interpretation from the list members/playtesters?

>> Actually, I explained our standard set-ups in the snipped section 
>> right above the quoted section about scenario objectives.
>
> Those scenario set-ups all looked as if the two sides were facing more

> or less towards one another, which made them rather odd-looking for a 
> pursuit situation. 

One was ambush of a group in the center of table.
One was perpendicular courses entering from adjacent sides
One was parallel courses entering from adjacent corners.

And I also said "we specifically avoid 'line up your minis and joust' 
type of set-ups".

Which one did you think was "facing more or less towards one another"

>> I have noticed that it takes about 4-6 posts of wrangling before a 
>> significant suggestion or point comes up.  Is this a coincidence, or 
>> intentional?
>
> It is mostly because many of us have already gone through this debate 
> at least 3-4 times and often more over the past several years. (Eg., 
> I've been on this list and its predecessor for close to ten years 
> now.) In several cases, I at least honestly didn't realize that you 
> hadn't already seen it before.

assumptions.

>
> Now that we know that you've only been on the list for a few months, 
> and haven't yet figured out how to use the search tools in the archive

> to find the older discussions which might interest you, then we could 
> try harder to explain things to you from the start. But then again, 
> since you only seem to consider what we're trying to tell you to be 
> "sputtering, spurious, sarcastic straw man arguments", why should we 
> really bother?

Actually, that statement was about Mr. Laserlight alone.

I have elsewhere stated that several posts have been helpful and/or 
informative.  I have done this specifically in response to each and 
every such item.

In particular, Mr. West, Mr. Walker, and (I think accidentally, but with

good intentions) yourself, Mr. Ohlson.

However, all of Mr. Laserlight's post have been condescending and/or 
patronizing, without actually giving any information, ideas, or 
assistance.  He also uses extreme examples (like a "1 MU x 2 MU table"),

which are neither helpful nor further an understanding of any point 
being made.

> Yes, sorry. Typo :-( Big enough to use high-speed tactics on, anyway; 
> in particular it is wide enough that a B2 can't reach from one long 
> edge to the other.

I presume that you mean that a ship with B2s in the center of the 
(5'x8', 1" = 1 MU) table does not cover the entire short distance from 
edge to edge with a 360 degree weapon?

>>> How far from the infrastructure in question does the battle start 
>>> (ie. how far can the table scroll before you reach your 
>>> destination), and what happens when you leave the table by moving 
>>> too far away for the table to scroll? (In 'real' space, as well as 
>>> on a larger table, the ships would re-engage pretty soon - within a 
>>> game turn or two - so it's not as if you get away permanently by 
>>> leaving the table. Particularly not if you leave in some other 
>>> direction than the infrastructure you want to hit is located.)
>>
>> The destination is normally an infinite distance away
>
As in "infinite" = "undefined"

< snip >

>  IOW, if you want a realistic assessment of what the T8B5 can do you 
> probably need to reconsider the "if a ship leaves the table it 
> disengages" rule :-/

Do you have any suggestions on how to determine when, where and how the 
ship re-enters the play area?  I would like to hear how you handle this 
situation, because i expect that even on your 80x120 MU area you have 
encountered such a situation.

J