Re: New NAC ship and a cheese question

In a message dated 1/31/2000 2:34:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:

> > Opps.
>  
>  Don't you mean "oops"?

Opps that I misspelled it.
  
>  > >	sounds fine to me. it may not work, but it's legal and not
entirely
>  > >	cheesy.
>  > >	
>  > 
>  > Okay, thanks.  What part is cheasy?
>  
>  I'd say that it is potentially cheesy due to the significant
departure 
>  from the standard NAC form of ships. Why would they convert a carrier
to 
>  carry all missiles? I could see MT missiles as a full compliment
instead 
>  of fighters, but SM's are very different, they'd be more inclined to 
>  convert an old battle wagon or something. 

Okay, maybe one of the ships from the NAC reinforcements page.
-Stephen