GZG List archives -- October 2006

Number 305 of 323 messages in this Archive
[Date Prev] Main Index [Date Next]
[Thread Prev] Thread Index [Thread Next]

Re: Re: [GZG]  Full Thrust Playtest



I said:
>> That would be plausible, but most ships don't launch enough missiles for it to make a difference. This one would drop mass by 32, to 68. You'd get Thrust 4.

JohnT said:
>Are not heavy missiles mass 2 each

The system is 1 Mass for the missile and 1 Mass for the launching rack, controls and such. I don't recall whether that's Official(tm) yet but it's been explicitly covered by the Test list and it's analogous to the way SML and SMR work.

>I don't know about unified fighter proposal

That's what we need tested, though.
See my post about a week ago with the "Short Form" rules. I want people to try that without having Oerjan's "Long Form" in front of them, so we can see if the short form explains enough.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l




  • Prev by Date: Re: [GZG] Re: [FT] Google Full Thrust Search Engine (BETA)
  • Next by Date: [FT] Unified Fighter Rules? Re: Re: [GZG] Re:  Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: [GZG] Re:  Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Re:  Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

  • Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index

    roger@nospam.firedrake.org
    Generated: Wed Nov 01 02:07:48 GMT 2006