Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

On 6/25/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu

> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:00:21 -0700
> From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

> I just don't buy either of these.

Fine. I just made it up off the top of my head. It wasn't intended to
be convincing. My point is that any argument based on PSB is silly
because it can be counter-argued with more PSB.

I'm more interested in a fun game than one that's "realistic", when
the topic is interstellar spaceships a couple of hundred years in the
future played on a 2D board and "cinematic" movement.

I realize some folks are unable to suspend their disbelief unless the
PSB is at least marginally reasonable. If the only thing stopping a
fun rule from being used is PSB, though, I'm more willing to work on
the PSB than on stripping the rule from the game.

That's not to say I like the salvo missiles as they are. I haven't
played FT enough in the last few years to have any opinion either way.
I haven't been to a game convention in almost 6 years, and I've lost
some interest in FT while waiting for FT3 to gel.

-- 
Allan Goodall		 http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l