RE: EFSB to FT:FB

They will mesh well, rules-wise.  Play-wise might be a different story. 
 You could easily differentiate between FTFB & EFSB ships by saying they

are different tech bases.  EFSB Pulse cannons have smaller range
bands(10 
MU v. 12 MU), and can be intercepted by interceptor systems & fighters. 
 I'd give interceptor systems a chance to stop SMs.  The EFSB ships have
no 
screens, but the HBWs they have more than make up for their defensive 
shortcomings.  Also, EFSB ships don't necessarily follow FTFB damage
track 
creation.  it would be an interesting fight.  For fighters, you will
have 
to give certian races bonuses (Humans, Minbari, as I remember).  I would

advise keeping the energy mines, but all players should have knowledge
of 
the capabilities of their enemies.  Unless you want to run a 'Surprise!'

battle - these can be fun, depending on the maturity of your players. 
Give 
the 'surprisee' some realistic victory conditions - ex: survive, get x 
turns close-range data, whatever.

Noah

-----Original Message-----
From:	John Atkinson [SMTP:jatkins6@ix.netcom.com]
Sent:	Thursday, August 06, 1998 01:32 PM
To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject:	EFSB to FT:FB

OK, our group has finally agreed to go to FTFB rules for next Monday's
game.  However, we've got one fellow who has never played FT, but has
done the EFSB.	He and I were wondering about the feasability of
putting EFSB designs into a Fleet Book fight.  I've never read the
EFSB, he's never read the FT rules.  How compatible are they?  We've
already agreed to drop the Narn Energy Mines, which I've heard nasty
things about--essentially one-shot Nova Cannons, no?  He's got an
Omega, a Hyperion, and a couple of Narn ships he might be using.

John M. Atkinson