Prev: Re: Nathan's FB3 comments, Next: Re: Nathan's FB3 comments,

Re: [FT] Command FireCon

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@p...>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:13:09 -0800
Subject: Re: [FT] Command FireCon

>And in reply to John you indicated that the slaved ship shouldn't be 
>allowed to fire at all that turn (sorry if I misunderstood).

Heh-heh. Caught me. Actually I hadn't really given the destruction of 
the system alot of thought until John brought it up. So I decided (on 
the fly, so to speak) to go with the more harsh choice. I should help 
rules-weenies to think twice before attempting to abuse the system.

So just for clarification, we could add that ships decide which 
weapons to slave to the command ship. If the CFC is 
destroyed/disabled those weapons may not fire. However, for 
simplicity's sake, I'm going with the whole ship concept. Slave 
everything, if the CFC goes, you loose it all!

>"Their ships can also display an unusual sensor array that allows 
>them to lend out FC to neighbouring ships (this appears to have been 
>an incidental technology accruing from their need to get around the 
>problems of long range communication). The array is 2 mass and costs 
>5xmass and allows the ship to lend its FC to anyone ship (per 
>functioning array) within 6". Obviously the ship itself can not then 
>use those FC to fire its own weapons."

Cool. Not quite what I'm looking for here, but I do like the idea. 
What were you developing it for? I'd like to see the rest.

Prev: Re: Nathan's FB3 comments, Next: Re: Nathan's FB3 comments,