Re: Okay, now I've played and watched FT

Jon Davis wrote:
> 
> Michael Sandy wrote:
> 
...Snip...(JTL)
> > 3)	Everybody seems to have their own house rules for
> > how exactly movement works, so make sure everybody
> > agrees ahead of time.
> >
> > Michael Sandy
> 
> Good points, Michael.  I find it strange that the movement
> rules are interpreted in multiple fashions.  I thought Jon
> Tuffley's explanations and examples were adequate for the
> task.  I guess this means more examples and more illustrations
> for the third edition.
> 
> Jon

Jon,
    Jon T.s rules are clearly written, that is not the (perceived)
problem.   The movement and firing sequence is not consistent, it
is based on tacitical advantage.   I have tried out a move system
based on thrust (thrust value, low to high) that the group (I think)
can live with because it is consistent.   (Ships fire in reverse 
order of move.)
     Fighters have had the firing range removed, and must be in base
to base contact to have combat.  (This removes the 'ambush' style
of fighter combat that I used so well in Phil P.s last game.) 
     What I have seen on the list makes me think that many different
forms of house rules exist.   These rules make the 'cloudy' areas
go away.   Everybody in the 'house' group winds up on the 'same page'.
     Even the comments about problems seem to have a common background.
This would indicate that the rules 'violate' some peoples 'perceived
reality of space combat' and that the 'house rules' are the most 
common means to 'correct' the problem.
     
It's getting late and I am starting to babble.

Bye for now,
John L.