Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:39:19AM +0000, Jon Tuffley wrote:
>It is entirely true that FTL has no game effect in the majority of
situations - I don't know how many players have ever used the "arrival
out of FTL" rules in a game….anyone here? The only other real effect
that you get in game terms by having FTL drives as a separate ship
system is that loss of them will strand the damaged ship in-system by
making escape to FTL impossible, but again that is quite a minor factor
and more of use in campaign terms than a one-off game.

I have used the arrival rules for an ambush scenario, but it didn't
make a lot of difference to the game.

_In a campaign game_ I like being able to escape by FTL. But even
then, disengaging by distance is still possible and can be handwaved
as "you got far enough away to do the jump calculations and spin up
the drives".

>As a completely off-the-cuff suggestion, that I haven't thought through
at all, how about doing away with the FTL drive as a "paid for" system
and making it into a fourth Core System alongside the Command (Bridge),
Life Support and Power Core icons?

I wonder whether you might phrase it something like:

Main rules: "You have these four core systems, and (MASS*.9) mass
units to fit in hull structure, drives, weapons, etc."

Supplementary/advanced rules: "You can omit the FTL system to get
(MASS*.1) free space, or fit an FTL tug system to (etc.), and the
campaign implications of this are (etc.)." - i.e. make it something
explicitly for campaign games.

R