Prev: RE: [OFFICIAL] RE: [FT] Size of "Countries" in FT Next: Loactions of Stars (was RE: [FT] Size of "Countries" in FT)

Re: [FT] Railgun Goals

From: John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@s...>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:23:13 -0800
Subject: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals

Thomas Barclay wrote:
> So, you can fire your class 2 as a trashcan shot out to say 24"
> barring rerolls, but will average 14". It'll do 2d6 damage (an
> average of 3.5 to armour and 3.5 past armour). Fire the same gun in
> a raking fire mode at close range, your average range will be 7"
> (since you are rolling d6 individually), a maximum range of 12", but
> your damage could be as much as 6d6, but it will all be applied
> against armour and won't get re-rolls for damage.

     Please note, reguarding the division of damage between the 
armor and the first damage box row

     Please don't bother, as the action is a POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME.

The best way to look at 'armor' is to consider the armor to be
an extension of the first row of damage boxes, nothing more.
Unless we create an 'official' method to bypass the armor, 
(I.E. one point to armor and the rest internal) all the different
modes, (Shotgun, Trash can, Penetrator, ect) have no meaning.
(Beyond a feel good effect)
Shotgun mode: scrubs off armor (all) and then first damage box
row		       (all) causing a threshold check.
Trashcan mode: divides damage between armor and first damage row  
	       untill armor (all) and damage boxes (all) have 
	       been marked off causing a threshold check.

There is no difference between the two modes, both cause a threshold
check after all armor and all damage boxes have been marked off.

Now to trash my concept, it would be possible to design a ship with
an very large amount of armor on a fragile hull, but I really 
cannot see this being done with any regularity.

Just thoughts,
Bye for now,
John L.

Prev: RE: [OFFICIAL] RE: [FT] Size of "Countries" in FT Next: Loactions of Stars (was RE: [FT] Size of "Countries" in FT)