Re: Genericity of grasers (was Re: UNSC beta and FB3)

--- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote: 
> But I think Jared's point is that even "laser" is a lot more specific
> than "beam battery", and I think it's a fair one. I play Full Thrust
> mostly in the GZG universe, but not everyone wants to do that...
> 

That is exactly what I meant.  The "standard beam battery" can be a
laser, particle accelerator/cannon, phaser, maser, graser, ion cannon,
pulse battery, disruptor, etc.

I understand that for Dean Gundberg's crossover game at ECC this year
he replaced the EFSB heavy beams with the beta "graser" mechanic.  In
this case, it is being used as a "heavy beam" (EA slice'n'dice beams
were never described in more detail) and would, by extension, be used
for Minbari neutron cannon and molecular cannon.  

> One could level a similar claim at anti-matter torpedoes; who's to
> say that the _standard_ missiles don't use anti-matter, in the 
> universe someone's trying to emulate with Full Thrust?
> 

--- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> If you're dying for a  more generic name for Grasers, propose one. 
> FT is pitched as a generic game, but it is _also_ a genre game of 
> its own. As long as the mechanics are generic, the names don't have
> to be.

I did, indirectly.  "Long range, heavy beam" or 'Long range,
high-damage beam".

--- Jerry Acord <acord@imagiware.com> wrote:
>
> What if my universe has only missiles, no beam / other energy weapons
> at all?  I could just as easily argue for the "specificity" of beams 
> in this case...  Let alone the fact that the Fleet Books aren't 
> exactly "generic"!
> 

When writing up a conversion, I usually refer to them as "FT Standard
Batteries".  Thus they work for ST phasers/disruptors/lasers, SW
turbolasers, B5 pulse batteries, etc.  If I were to convert the Sci-Fi
Channel BSG (2003), I would use this mechanic for the massed, rapid
fire, apparently ballistic weapons and something else for the large
ship-killer missiles. 

J