Re: Forcing fights, Optional Rules, etc

Replying to several posts here. Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

>Örjan:
> 
>>FT2 pages 21 and 22. They're marked "Advanced" just like the fighter
>>rules, all non-beam weapon rules and the ship design rules; it's your
>>call if that makes them "optional" or not <shrug> 
> 
>Jon's comment about putting sensor rules on hold doesn't count? 

That was in reply to a question explicitly concerning the MT sensor
rules, so I'm not entirely certain it counts against the FT2 ones.

Weapon ranges can exceed the ranges at which you can positively
identify your target (using the FT2 sensor rules), yes. They don't
exceed the range at which you can detect the target and determine its
location close enough to shoot at it (very similar to certain fairly
recent tank battle after action reports I've seen, BTW).

The FT2 sensor rules aren't strictly required. OTOH, neither are
custom-designed ships (in which case you have no thrust-8 ships except
the ESU Lenovs if using FB1, or the Courier, Strike Boat, Lancer, Scout
Ship, Corvette and Privateer if using the FT2 and MT ships), fighters,
or any non-beam weapons <shrug>

Why use interceptable freighters? Because 12 thrust-15 freighters carry
as much cargo as 1 thrust-4 freighter, and cost almost 20 times more.
Can you afford to maintain the 12 thrust-15 freighters during times of
peace better than you can afford to lose the occasional thrust-4
freighter to enemy raiders during a war?

>Since you started quoting on me, I actually dug out my rulebook. Lo
and
>behold, FT2 pg. 2 reads:
> 
>"...the various parts of the Advanced rules MAY be added, either all
at
>once or PIECEMEAL AS DESIRED. Pick and choose which of the >Advanced
rules YOU wish to use -- they are ALL effectively >OPTIONAL..."
(emphasis mine).
> 
>This, IMHO, implies that the game is designed to work regardless of
>which optional rules one might choose to use or ignore. Jon, please
>correct me if I'm wrong.

You're quite correct, of course. My bad; I should have made sure you
knew which of them (ie., all) I considered to be in use.

I return a final couple of quotes (hope they're final; I'll try to stop
after this): "Above all, FULL THRUST is intended to be an ENJOYABLE
game - if you are not happy with a rule or system, throw it out and use
your own [...]" (FT2 p.2) and "Have fun, and above all: DON'T PLAY THE
RULES, PLAY THE GAME!" (FB1 p.46).

Since you are quite obviously not happy with the FT and FB rules as
they stand, how come I've never seen you actually propose any solutions
of your own to the problems you seem to find so overwhelming? Or, if
you don't have any solutions after all this time, how come you're still
playing a game you've repeatedly denounced as broken and
far-too-easily-abused? Over the past few years you've always given a
very strong impression of playing the rules exclusively and to the
extremes of their printed letters <shrug>

>Now, I'm perfectly willing to discuss CORE RULES ONLY. But if you
>feel those are inadequate, perhaps you'd be generous enough to share
>your view as to which of the optional rules are not actually optional
at >all?

Depends. If you play with FT2 only, all of the Advanced Rules are
optional.

If you play with FBx, the only FT2 Advanced rules I'd consider truly
optional are the Nova Cannon and the various design-system-related FT2
rules (since the latter are completely superceded by the FBx design
system).

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry