Prev: SV: Unfair Kamikazes? /Starfire nostalgia Next: Re: Unfair Kamikazes?

Re: Unfair Kamikazes?

From: JP & Val Fiset <fiset@m...>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:41:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Unfair Kamikazes?

Dave Ross wrote:
> Brian Bell wrote:
> > I would hate to lose this rule. 
> This whole thread is very interesting; not just Brian's comments. 

Very interesting indeed.

> I can't
> agree that ramming should deliberately be ruled out for any speed or
> reason. 

I feel the same way.  Although, I can see the point of those against
it.  In a PBEM (First Blood) that I participated in before, some rules
were added to board a ship.  These rules made it easier to board a ship
if both ships were travelling in the same general direction.

I believe this type of modifier makes sense and that it could apply to
ramming.  The modifier would make it easier to ram a ship from behind
and harder to ram a ship in a head-to-head fashion.  Some scheme, as the
following one, could be used:
- ramming from behind: roll a SIX on a D6 (as per rules)
- ramming on the side: roll a SIX on a D6 and then beat a 2 on a D6
- ramming head on: roll a SIX on a D6 and then beat a 4 on a D6

>From a PSB point of view, it makes sense (think of aircraft dogfight:
is easier to track a target from behind).  From a play point of view, it
preserves ramming but requires more strategic skills. 

I have not tested the rules written above and I do not claim that they
are fair.  But I believe rules similar to those would help many
situations that were discussed on this thread.

As far as leaving the table under FTL, maybe the damage imposed on ships
around a destroyed ship is too much. How about ships within a 3 unit
radius takes full damage, and ships in 3 to 6 units range take half the

It might be simplistic, but players from both camps (for and against
kamikaze operations) might find a consensus along those lines.


Prev: SV: Unfair Kamikazes? /Starfire nostalgia Next: Re: Unfair Kamikazes?