Re: 4th Heavy Beams

>> The better
>> comparison is the SML+ Magazine, and that's so subject to random
factors
as
>> to be hard to compare with confidence.

>really? does anyone [1] think the SM(L+M) combination can be analysed?

As you note, Oerjan may, but me as a mere mortal who dislikes SM's to
begin
with....

> in any case, you haven't answered the question: you say two hits is
> appropriate for the HB but not the SM, and then say you can't explain
why
> because the SM is too random.

Back of the napkin:
Max damage of the SM is 36 at all ranges (minimum mass=6 for ER mag).
Average is 12.25 minus 2.6 per PDS. Subtract some for placement, add
some
for experience.
Max dam of HB2 with emitter 3 at 0-6" is 18 (minimum mass=9). Average is
10.5 minus screens (at shortest range only).

MyOp:
SM's don't deserve the break, HB's do (plus I like the PSB that makes
them
both behave the way they do.)

> if there's extra vulnerability, make it
> lighter and cheaper to balance it, don't mess about with the basic
> patterns of the game.

Why not? The SM does just that.  ;-). In fact, so does each unique
weapon
system (Beams, torps, missiles, fighters...)

>> >iow, guaranteed damage at ranges under 6 MU.
 
>> You Betcha.	Anyone careless enough to get in that close and inside
the
>> single arc deserves what they get.

>uh? so it's okay for rules to be unbalanced, because if people fall
foul
>of them, its their own fault for being so stupid? 

No. My argument is that they are not unbalanced. And (but this is
obvious)
that you should be aware of your opponent's strong and weak points.

> besides, with multiple
>emitters, it's not single-arc, is it? 

Multiple emitters is more expensive in mass and cost. Balances in my
book,
but I'll defer to Oerjan.

> and, as Kr'rt said, 6 mu is not that hard to do (for some people,
anyway).

Bloody KV can turn on a half-pence, kiss your sister and be home before
you
can say "Hey!" As usual it depends on your style and group. 

> you still have to account for the fact that there is *no* other weapon
> system which does guaranteed damage and which doesn't require movement
> guessing (i'm thinking of the the nova cannon and the SM) (correct me
if
> i'm wrong - certainly no major weapon systems).

I think it's still a guessing game. you've got a single arc out to 6" -
a
small piece of game real estate. if you've got more arcs you've paid 
for
them. And if the opponent has screens, "guaranteed damage" goes away,

>> >... perhaps the range increment
>> > could be made 8 mu to compensate; max range goes from 36 to 40.
 
>> Still don't like it.  Still weaker and more expensive than Ptorps in
almost
>> all ranges P-torps can fire in. Is 0.167 points of damage per die
average
at
>> range 32-40 compensation? I don't think so.

>i'm not claiming to have number-crunched any of this; i'm just saying
that
>two details of the HB proposal make unprecedented changes to the game.

Not for EFSB veterans. And I'll hazard to say FBII will make the mods of
the
HB look like a spit in the rain.

>now, that may or may not matter, but i'd like to see a convincing
argument
>as to why the coherence of FT needs to be broken.

I don't see how this "breaks" the system any more than KV (or SV or god
knows Phalon) weapons do. It creates a new dynamic and new weapon metric
to
test and balance. Gives a different feel for a different system. That's
not
breaking, that's adding variety and color. Even in a KISS system,
variety is
both available and desirable.

Noam