Prev: Re: RE: Breaking the trend with an FB2 question Next: Flash on figures

Re: RE: RE: Breaking the trend with an FB2 question

From: Jeremey Claridge <jeremy.claridge@k...>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:23:34 +0100 ()
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Breaking the trend with an FB2 question


> I would disagree with your ascertain that Interceptor Pods are
unbalanced.

Well I don't like the no extra cost to be able to fire an anti-fighter
weapon in
support of another ship.
 
> As to your comment about bringing along floating IP generators, what
is to
> stop a KV player from bringing along a floating Scattergun platform?
It
> amounts to about the same.

Point taken both weapons are open to abuse.
 
> I think that the real trick is to make sure that valid victory
conditions
> are specified for the scenario. 

But what about a straight fight with no specific scenario.

Personally I would have thought keeping the interceptor pod to a point 
defence weapon for only things attacking that ship and dispense with 
the 12 range against any missiles/fighters.

Knowing that you could be facing a 1d6 damage from one ship is bad
enough.
With the possibility for the neighbouring ships within 12 to give you a
pounding
keeps my fighters in the docking bay until the enemy don't have enough 
hull left to throw at them. But that's a hell of a gamble.

To be honest this sounds like the Tuffley Missile Crisis (as I like to
call it) we
had when FB2 came out and everybody hated the new missiles.

There's just no pleasing some people :)

----------------------
Jeremey Claridge
jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk

Prev: Re: RE: Breaking the trend with an FB2 question Next: Flash on figures