Re: Table positioning, etc...

Allan Goodall writes:
@:) At 12:06 PM 7/28/97 +0300, Mikko wrote:

@:) Agreed. Why do you need a relative grid on a table? For a PBEM
@:) game, yes.	For a miniatures game, no. Simply make turns relative
@:) to the ship's heading.

  Since nobody else is standing up for their principles, I feel
compelled to note that I, at least, still believe that a "relative
grid" is in better accordance with the rules, and that it simplifies
things greatly.

  The real issue, as flogged previously, is whether ships may or may
not turn in increments of anything other than thirty degrees.  If
ships are allowed to turn thirty degrees OR FEWER, having a "grid" is
useless.  If, however, ships are constrained to turn in EXACT
multiples of thirty degrees, they will always line up with one of the
twelve COURSEs described in the rulebook.  If a ship does not line up
with a COURSE it is because the handler of that ship has failed to
make it do so, perhaps in an effort to better align a weapon such as a
Nova Cannon.  My group doesn't use protractors to make sure ships are
always precisely aligned, but we do allow players to align their ships
after, for example, a formation executes a turn.  This helps keep
formations together.

-joachim