RE: [FT] Hull strength and Stress

Jared E Noble wrote:
> Just to throw a new thread into the mix...
<snip>
> What I propose (I don't know if anyone does this) is to allow a ship
to be
> designed with any hull value, with a minimum of 10% or 1
> (whichever is more) The
> hull rating (fragile, weak average, strong, super) is determined
> by comparing
> against the standard % values. So the above mass 100 with hull 35
> is Average
> (because it does not yet reach 40%.)

I have been thinking the same thing, you just beat me to the list.  When
designing ships, there are times that I would willingly trade some hull
boxes for a weapon or when strong hulls don't allow enough space for
systems
but as a racial/empire trait, the ship should have more hull than
average.

Your proposal of the minimum of 10% is good and then setting the rating
based on where the percentage does fall.  In the end, each mass for hull
is
counted separately so swapping some hull mass for systems will work for
current mass and cost calculations.  I don't think this will open a hole
for
munchkinism since there are trade offs and cost changes while each mass
is
still accounted for.

I have started doing this on a few ships.  For example, B5 Nova
conversion
to FB rules worked out too big with an average hull but to small with a
weak
hull so a picked a hull mass and worked from there.

I would like to know what Jon (GZG) thinks about this since it would be
a
good optional rule for the 3rd edition.

> ** Hull Stress Ratings **
<snip>
I can see the reasoning behind this but I'm not sure I would use itin
the
'keep it simple' world of FT.  Other questions are in a vector
environment,
would thrust used for pushes and rotation be added or effect this at
all? (a
damage track for a thrust 8 ship would need 12 levels if they are added
and
would be cluttered) In a cinematic world many of the inertial forces are
already ignored so why pay attention to this one?  This would be a nice
house rule though.

Dean