Re: Thoughts on FB3

aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:
> 
> Assuming that BDS is in the pipeline, I've had a few thoughts about
FB3. What
> should be in it.
[...]
> Re new rules:
[...]
> * MT missiles - here we need to consider the things, as we now have a
directly
> competitive system (SMLs) and fighters no longer move 12" vs 18", but
24" with
> a possible extra.
> 
> Some options:
> * Minimal Change - they still move 18", like ships, for 3 turns. Of
course this
> means that fighters will always eat them.
> * Same sort of rules as ER SMLs, 36" range, 1-turn endurance. They'd
be directly
> competitive to SML ER-racks, cost 5 mass each. So you could get 5 MTs
for the
> price of 2 SML-ERs if they cost 2 mass each. That would do 10 dice vs
7 dice
> (average), but require 5 hits to destroy vs 7 (on average). And they
home in
> on the selected target, not the closest. Certainly under these
circumstances
> they'd be not over-costed!
> * Same sort of rules as Fighters/SMRs, but with 3? 2? moves
> * Same rules as Fighters but:
> endurance 3, speed 18(say)
> CAN burn the an endurance to go 6" like a fighter can 12.
> MUST attack closest target within 6".

I like something akin to the last two options. I always disliked the MT
missile because its maneuverability was....rather restricted (2 point
course change/turn was too few to me - esp if fighters can go any which
way).

> Feedback? Do we all agree that FB3 at least should have UN and IF?
> Do we all agree that FB3 should have as a target "all the ships that
GZG makes
> for FT that haven't appeared in FBs 1&2?"

I would like to see Jon's idea on the stats for UN, IF, and LLAR ships.

> What about a goal time - say Christmas?

Christmas....which year? With BDS and the scenario book yet to be
put together, you thinkin' 2001 or 2002?  ;-)

Mk