Re: Poll: HBs and Armour

>From Roger:

> No roll to hit, rolls d6's for damage, rerolls, ignores all but first 
>  point of armor?  Talk about your munchkin weapon... 
> Ooops, forgot, also get's two rolls to stay up instead of one, thus is

>  much more survivable than SMs. 
Ahhh...No.
Auto hit at 0-6" vs. unscreened only. You think that's unfair, revisit
KV
scatterguns. Brian sees those as unbalanced, probably because they're
too
cheap for their power. I think there's zero wrong with autohit anywhere
as
long as its paid for. And I still like the feel of it for the HBW.
D6 damage minus rnage modifier is less per die than P-torp at most
ranges,
and cost balance is being worked in this excercise.
No rerolls (already covered).
Each die scores 1 armor first, then penetrates, with consumate need to
increase cost.
With two systems they're more vulnerable than systems other than SMLs.
SM's
have higher damage potential per shot, and the dynamic, which is a nice
carryover from EFSB is also part of the cost balance.

Nothing munchkin about it unless you want to cost it like a Class 1
beam,
and no one is trying to do that.

>I know there seems to be great love for a single shot ship killer
without 
>  the disadvantages of SM's, but what is wrong with calling a class
III/IV/

>  whatever a HBW? 

If there is such a love, it's certainly not represented by the HBW as
it's
being discussed. The weapon is simply not a ship killer.

>  Or this: 
>  HBW:  Functions as 2 class 3's (and takes 8 mass)....

Don't care for it, at least not as an HBW substitute. Perhaps as some
mondo
spinal mount beam...

>  I don't understand why the sudden interest in the uber weapon. 

Becuase there isn't.

As for unified "to hit," I dislike that a great deal. I think that as
long
as the system stays simple - and all the ways "to hit" are simple in FT
-
the more variety the better. I want something bland _less_ than I want
something overcomplex.

Noam