Re: GenCon Review with a GZG Emphasis (part 3 of 4)

You wrote: 

>Why leave it at that? You could mark *all* the possible locations of 
*all* >the ships. You could do statistical analysis on weapon fire 
exchange from >each of the possible position combinations. You could do 
that for all >possibilities two turns away. Three turns away. Four 
turns away. Five >turns away (and take Monday off work). Etc. ad 
nauseum. This is basically >how chess computers work, and they're 
pretty darn good these days. Why not >use the same tactic to WIN?

Classic reducto ad absurdum.  It's fun, easy, and still was a fallacy 
last time I checked.

Realistically, measuring two ships and putting down two dice during the 
plotting phase isn't going to slow you down that much.	Seems to me 
you're looking to poke holes in the rules.  Fine.  If that gives you 
pleasure, so be it.  But people who play like that don't play with me.	
Since I'm usually the one running the game, I can throw assholes out.  
If not, I throw myself out.  I deal with assholes at work, and I refuse 
to do so on my spare time.  Mini-maxing, rules-lawyering jackasses like 
the members of this list frequently discuss come under the heading of 
"People I don't permit at my gaming table".  See also: Persons with 
little to no comprehension of deoderant.  Gaming is a social leisure 
activity.  If I'm not having fun through interacting with other people, 
there ain't much of a point in continuing to do so.

>Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Have you read the article? The
>proposed weapon system consisted of "missiles", essentially mass 2 (?)
>(robot) ships with nothing but drives. You'd launch them and have them 
hit >FTL in the midst of a dense enemy formation.

Oooh.  Now there's a fun game.	NOT.  Solution:  FTL engines just don't 
work in gravity well of star.  Hence 99% of engagements this won't 
work.  The 6" rule is for engagements outside gravity well of star.

John M. Atkinson