Prev: RE: SF Quotes <off topic> Next: Re: DS Rule Clarifications

Re: Solitaire Full Thrust and old SFB

From: Donald Hosford <Hosford.donald@a...>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 11:14:19 -0800
Subject: Re: Solitaire Full Thrust and old SFB



Tim Jones wrote:

> On Friday, February 27, 1998 7:12 PM, Mark Donelan
[SMTP:donelan@shore.net] wrote:
> >	  I have noticed a lot of hostility towards SFB on this list.
>
> I think its more like 'pity' than 'hostility'
>
> >	  Does anyone have some ides for a full thrust soltaire game?
>
> As you point out there are no solitaire scenarios as such, I have
played the planet
> killer from SFB in Full Thrust (FT), it seems to work OK. You can
convert the SFB
> solitaire scenarios to FT, there are no published official or
unofficial solitaire
> scenarios for FT AFAIK.
>
> >	  Some ideas that cometo mind are simplified rules for an
automatic player, or a
> >	  simple automated base.
>
> There are some robot ship rules, started from the SFB robot rules but
have had
> additions from FTGZGL - they are on several sites on the web-ring.
They could
> easily be adapted for a base.
>
> If you come up with any solitaire scenarios or automata be sure to
post them.
>
> sincerely
> tim jones
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> Reality is for those who can't cope with Science Fiction.

  The only other "Robot player" I ever heard of, was an artical that
appeared in the White
Dwarf mag several years ago.  These robots were "programed" by a set of
tiles.	They had
arrows that controled the flow of the "program". There were things like
'Fire main
weapon'  'Move slow', ect.  The advantage was that you could change the
robot's program.
I don't have the mag, but I thought the idea was so interesting, that
after I read the
artical in the hobby store, that I went home and made up my own set of
tiles!

Any of the (formerly) avid WH40K players might have the artical!  Maybe
an interesting
oppenent can be fashoned from it.

Donald Hosford

Prev: RE: SF Quotes <off topic> Next: Re: DS Rule Clarifications