Prev: Re: assemblying FT minis Next: Re: assemblying FT minis

DSII - SLAM vs Stealth

From: "Andrew & Alex" <Al.Bri@x...>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:52:21 +1300
Subject: DSII - SLAM vs Stealth

Jon Davis <davis@albany.net> wrote:

>My question and his reply is below:
>>On page 9 of the Dirtside rules, it states that SLAMs
>>"cannot be 'spoofed' by ECM or Stealth systems."
>>
>>Does this mean that the defender's die type against a
>>SLAM attack is the Basic signature?  I could not find
>>any other mention of this in the rulebook.  We have
>>been using effective signature, but a clarification would
>>be helpful.
>
>Yes, just the Basic signature - the reasoning being
>that SLAMs are unguided area-saturation weapons,
>and the bigger the target the more likely it is to get hit.

>Jon (GZG) made a reply to this question in April 1998.

    The DSII FAQ answer was taken from an archive which seemed to show
only
this reply:
	"Yes [to using the effective signature], since a slam is just
another direct fire weapon that uses a firecon to aim."
    That answer seemed reasonable as it made all direct fire weapons
have
the same procedure for firing.

I'll put both answers in the DSII FAQ and let players decide for
themselves.
    A more effective solution is to consider what stealth means. If you
regard stealth as camouflage and systems like the US stealth bomber,
cruiser
and fighter have, then Jon Tuffley's answer is best.
    If you regard stealth as more of an efficiency improvement, packing
more
systems into less space so reducing vehicle size, then the other answer
is
best.

Andrew Martin
Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz ICQ: 26227169
Blind See-Saw, DSII, DSII FAQ, GZG-L email FAQ, FUDGE, UY, MSH & WBG:
    http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/

Prev: Re: assemblying FT minis Next: Re: assemblying FT minis