Nathan's FB3 comments, was Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:04:05 +0100
Subject: Nathan's FB3 comments, was Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3
>Regards the OC, does ANYBODY have any information on what this >bloc
is supposed to be, or are they just not-Trek figures?
The ORC ships (ORC is Jon's own abbreviation, not mine) are supposed to
come from the Outrim Coalition. I strongly suspect that the 2193 entry
in the FB2 timeline gives a hint of the origins of the ORC <g>
>On the new rules front, I was alarmed at the bulk of extra
>systems rules brought in by FB2 (all the FB1 changes
>are fine, though I don't use all of them). I would hope we
>could avoid a TFG-like spiral of "weapons effectiveness
>inflation" whereby players have to adopt the latest races
>and systems in order to remain competitive.
FB2 introduced 3 new systems that didn't already exist in some form in
MT: Pulsers, PBLs, and the Sa'Vasku Pod Launchers. Not *that* bad, I
think, but if each new fleet in FB3 and onwards gets its own special
weapon things will get hairier very fast :-/
>For the UN, we have discussed various new heavy
>weapons systems and modular hulls. These would be
>good additions if they are no more complex than any
>of the rules in FT2.
The easiest way to do modular hulls in the tactical game is the way the
Phalon Pulsers work :-/
>Finally, just to throw a new idea into the FB3 pot, has
>anyone considered IF suicide crews in the past?
Has anyone *not* used FTL kamikazes at one time or other...? <g>
Which reminds me: the FTL rules have been semi-officially modified
(ie., Jon suggested it and wasn't shouted down <g>) on this list, but
it is probably a good idea to put it on paper as well :-/
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."