RE: Table positioning, etc...

On Wednesday, July 30, 1997 9:05 AM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio 
[SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi] wrote:
> But I wonder what benefit absolute directions would give the game? FT
does
> not have ANY ship-to-ship rules, IIRC, that rely on relative headings.
If
> it had, say, deflection modifiers for gunnery, the situation would be
> different.
>

One of the benefits is backtracking. If you get the giant space cat or
child
of just a lot of ships and an elbow and all the ships fall over. 
Re-setting 
the
ships up can be difficult. If you use absolute directions you can
reconstruct
 the positions, if its off a relative datum you have no way of doing
this.

>I must admit that if you read the rulebook like lawyer, absolute
headings
>is the interpretation you get from it. Though even the book is a
>bit ambiguous -- it speaks of recording ship course, yet the fleet
record
>sheet has no place for it, turning orders are explicitly given as
>relative to current heading.

Agreed the only record of the course is the position of the ship
counter/mini

I don't find  the movement rules ambiguous,  I agree with you that  they
are 
written
using an absolute datum.  Interpreting them in this way shouldn't label
you.

>3) Realism. Coupled with "zero-speed spin to ANY direction (not any
clock
>face)", completely removes the "I can't hit the docking bay, it's at
>11:30"  idiocy.

If you use the relative 'house' rule then the zero turn to any heading
you 
suggest
makes sense.

sincerely
tim jones
--
entropy requires no maintenance