RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

How about if the beam caused a threshold check at the level of hull
penatration for only one type of system-- role one dice:

1. Propulsion systems ftl and maneuver drives checks.
2. non missile Heavy weapons weapon systems of mass over 2 check.
3. non missile Light Weapons systems of mass of 1 or 2 check.
4. Shields and shrouds.
5. Fighter bays,  MT missiles, Slavo Missiles, plasmas, pod lanchers.
6. core systems if penatration adaquate.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Kevin Walker
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 12:49 PM
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

on 8/7/00 11:40, Bell, Brian K at Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil wrote:

> Sorry, I was out of town this weekend.
>
> 2 dice at 0-36". Roll each dice as Beam with no rerolls (4-5 = 1
damage
> point, 6=2 (no rerolls) on unscreened targets; 5=1, 6=2 (no rerolls)
against
> level-1 screened targets; 5=1, 6=1(no rerolls) for level-2 screened
> targets). First damage point applied against armor, each remaining
points
> applied to the next level down. All rolls of a 6 cause a threshold
check
for
> the target at the current level (or as first threshold level, if the
target
> still have hull boxes in the first row). Not included in the first,
but I
> would also suggest that the beam would have to damage at least 1 hull
box
to
> cause a threshold check (i.e. level 2 screens & armor or Phalon
multi-level
> armor would postpone threshold checks).

I've been watching this discussion for a while.  One problem I'm having
with
the whole concept is the cutting/piercing nature of the attack with the
overall threshold check.  To me it would feel a little more consistent
if
only one or two systems were checked for threshold damage - although I
don't
have a good way of determining which systems were subjected to this.  I
believe someone else voiced this as well.