Re: FMA: something missing

>Should indirect fire be in the "core" rules?  Not sure about a
>mechanic yet as I haven't played the rules (I have _one_ FT
>opponent and he's out of town).
>
>Now, not that I am complaining, but the x2 modifier on armour
>needs to be written up in the core rules OR the reference to
>it dropped.  There's nothing I hate worse than dangling
>references in a set of rules.

As I explained when I originally posted the draft FMA stuff last week,
what
went to the list was very hastily cobbled together from bits of about
four
or five different draft versions that were written over the last couple
of
years - I did warn everyone that there WOULD be bits that didn't mesh at
this stage.  For the moment, please take the draft with this in mind and
be
prepared to fudge through things like this. A more revised and cohesive
version will hopefully emerge from the tests and discussions in the
course
of time, and everything should be tied up neatly long before we get
anywhere near a publishable version. See my other post in answer to
Jim's
question for what I think should be in the core rules and what comes in
the
next level of detail.
>
>Roger Books