Re: [FT] OFFICAL RULING REQUEST (was Re: Couple of questions)

On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, It'll be cool, it'll be fun...it's gonna *suck*
wrote:
[snip]
> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I *thought* this question
came
> up shortly after the FleetBook came out, and Jon (T) responded that MT
> missiles reacted to (or rather, were acted upon by) PDS in the same
manner
> as Salvo Missiles (ie, an MT missile was taken out on a roll of 4-6 -
but
> each MT missile was considered *one* salvo [emphasis mine ;) ]).

Well, I wasn't around on the list until recently, so my apologies in
advance
if I'm rehashing old ground :).

I do sincerely hope that you are wrong, however. If true, it effectively
neuters the MT missile as an effective weapons system and kills one of
the
underpinnings of my fleet design philosophy.  If the original PDS rules
stand,
the costs/damage/effectiveness of the MT missile is barely worth while
as it
is, based upon average expected damage vs point/mass costs.  If the MT
missile is treated as a solo salvo, however, then the mass/point cost is
way
too high, IMO.	Big bummer.

> If I have time (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! "if I have time" - I kill
me!
> :) I'll try wading through the archives to find this, or my own
backlogged
> emails to see if I saved it.

Tanks, bub! <g>.

===================================================================
Mark "Hauptmann" Shurtleff
  email: hauptman@sfcmd.com -or- hauptman@concentric.net
  visit the Gear Locker at http://www.sfcmd.com/HeavyGear/

 Finagle's Law:
   The perversity of the Universe tends towards the maximum.
===================================================================