Re: rear-arc fire, redux (was: Re: more Laserlight's FT Lite rules

Well, if there was a rear arc option for weapons, then like any other
weapon mount, you have to choose where you want to concentrate your
fire.
Some folks, to stay within the specific design specs and flavor would
not
have weapons on the rear arcs.	Others, of course, would.  I don't see
where it really hurts to make it an option.  As long as you have to pay
for it like any other fire arc, it's just another *option*.

Having it would also allow for races and designs with non-standard
drives.
Where is the rear arc on a flying saucer? :)

J

John K. Lerchey
Computer and Network Security Coordinator
Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Dances With Rocks wrote:

> bail9672@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Re: firing out rear arcs
> > Frankly, I think that rule is stupid, but that's my opinion.  What
> > sf show do people might see regularly?  Star Trek.	What do
> > Star Trek ships do?  Shoot rearwards.  But that's a "universe"
> > specific thing.  B5 never shot backwards (they spun instead,
> > but you cannot do that in cinematic movement).  Didn't the
> > Millenium Falcon ever shoot its turreted weapons rearward?
> > It looks like it could even with drives activated.
> > Yeah, we house rule it away.
>
> Aaaactually, there was at least one scene in B5 in which a
> ship fired out its rear - with engines active. See also the
> opening scene of the 3rd season episode "Severed Dreams". The
> Omega heavy beams the hell out of a cruiser (the Lexington)
> that was pursuing it. Shot through the rear, while engines
> active.
>
> Come to think of it, later in season 4, when Sheridan's forces
> were taking back Proxima III from President Clarke's loyalists
> forces, I believe we saw weapons fire from the rear arcs of the
> Omegas there, too - but it was from a distance, and it was
> inconclusive whether or not the ships had engines thrusting at
> that mmoment. However, since they were all maneuvering about,
> it's reasonably safe to say yes they were.
>
> Now, that record set straight, I've always been in support
> of rear-arc fire. Starfire PSB'd it away, but I was always
> uneasy about it. It does make for an interesting tactical
> restriction, but that is what it is: a restriction. Why tie
> your hands in a fight?
>
> Mk
>
>