Re: 18.1" Anti-Aircraft Guns!!!

On 11 Mar 99, at 7:19, devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> If you want to include a rule for possible disabling of class 2's
> and above after using as AA's, I'd consider the varient.
I'd consider it more than a 'variant'. Apart from the Kra'Vak I think
most FT 
battery weapons are considered 'energy casters' - there is no projectile
as 
such above the subatomic level. Quite how a weapon like that could fire
a 
form of shot that might damage it I'm not sure about. 

> However, we are not exactly mimicing one front in one particular
> war. Let's not assume exact parity. This is not a 'correction'.
Indeed, examine the original message...

>> This is in direct contradiction of the Full Thrust Rules, page 17. 
One
>> way to correct the rulses is to allow all beam to fire as PDS, but
they
>> only get 1d6 at short range, even if it is a Class 20 beam.
The rules are not in 'contradiction' as they are not trying to
'simulate' 
anything approaching the same thing. The flavour text/ commentary might
but 
no-one is 100% right all of the time :).

 I've always been more of the opinion that 'big' batteries being used as
anti-
fighter weaponry was more down to focusing and target tracking problems
as 
much as anything to do with the 'method of attack'. If you work out your

angles of arc a fighter close in moving even vaguely could translate to
an 
object at typical 'ship combat' distance moving at what I believe Mel
Brooks 
described as 'ludicrous speed'.

			TTFN
				Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Did you have a good world when you died? Good enough to base a movie
on?"
    - The Doors
Jonathan White, COS group, Manchester University