Re: RE-[FT] SML-AF

John Leary wrote:

> --- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
>
> >
> > I believe that the SML-AF would be launched AFTER
> > fighter movement
> > (unlike normal SML launches).
> >
>
> While this creates another rule exception it
> is not important.   The fighters will move to
> the target ships endpoint and the SML-AF will
> be used prior to the ship movement.	This should
> allow the fighters to be outside the effective
> radius of the SML-AF with the fighters 2nd
> move yet to come.   For the SML-AF to protect
> the ship from fighters the ship must be doing
> less than speed 4.
> This will cause a tacital problem for the SML
> equipped ships.   I think that most players of
> SML ships, use the 'strike hard, strike fast,
> run like Hell' type of enguagement.
> The SML-AF runs directly counter to this
> tactic.

The psb that I provided for the SML-AF (much smaller warheads, no
sustainer, enlarged terminal maneuvering package, like the SPRINT
anti-ballistic missile which could not engage outside the atmosphere,
but accelerated at 30g's with '60's rocket tech), explained why it is
NOT a placed marker weapon nor should it be.  The Sa'Vasku interceptor
drones are not placed marker, and I suppose they do the same thing.
Just treat the SML-AF as a salvo of interceptor drone equivalents that
require one space in the magazine.  The rules are prejudiced against
place marker attacks against fighters.

Treating SML-AF as interceptor pods still allows for a high speed
"torpedo run"; although, with the added caveat that an SM launcher
cannot fire two salvoes in the same turn.