RE: [FT] WotW 2: EMP Weapons

>From Beth:

 >Gan't say I like it much better. Aside from
 >seeming somewhat needlish rather
 >than EMP-ish,

>Why does it seem needlish? Couldn't it just be a reflection of the 
>respective technicians tuning pulses and hardening protection??

Nominating specific systems for destruction is very needlish. Firer
choosing
the order of shipwide threshold is less so, IMO. Having the target
choosing
the order is very un-needlish, and probably more balancing for EMP
attacks.
This last is becoming my favored method for "limited check" EMP weapons.

> >every EMP hit lengthens the game significantly,

>That's going to be true of any EMP method we come up with I fear, 
>especially if they're attractive enough to be used as primaries (which
I 
>really don't want, but that's just me).

Perhaps. Most people can, after a few games, roll thresholds on even big
ships pretty quickly, though, esp. if there's reasonable trust among
players
to do it while the opponent is doing the next thing. 

Charles came forward:
 >Well, if we deside to limit non-shipwide threshold checks to 'Needle'
class
 >weapons (where the threshold check is replaced by a 'To hit' roll),

I personally don't want to do that at all. Keep EMP and needle mechanics
separate.

As for the virtual damage system, that may work, but balancing "virtual"
and
real daamge can be a big problem. Plus something that the mechanics of
the
virtual system will create: A ship - especially a larger one, that's one
hull box away from a threshold might consider sabotaging the last box to
get
a threshhold on itself (or friendly fire, or whatever) in order to avoid
a
double threshold from EMP+real damage the opponent might deal. I don't
think
I like that. I'd much rather set off a charge on one of my own Von
Tegetthoff's decks to force a 6+ threshold than have an EMP + a lonne
beam
force 2 such checks.

Schoon said:

> 1) They should affect a set number of systems - not a ship-wide 
> blanket. This is for balance.

I lean the other way, but would be OK with this on "defender chooses
order"

> 2) They should have a clearly defined, simple list (did I mention 
> simple?) of the systems that they affect, and in what order. If you 
> involve attacker or defender choosing, they'll take forever to do it, 
> and no one will be completely happy with the results anyway. Nail it 
> down, define it! That way there's nothing to argue about.

Lists that don't include every system beg for muliti- or
mis-interpretation
and abuse, and fully inclusive lists would be awfully cumbersome (Which
beams go first? Which class 2 beams go first? Which _arcs_ for class 2
beams
go first?) I think "Defender chooses" reduces the power of EMP weapons,
can
be very quick, and what argument could ensue? "That's not a system"?
"That
system's already damaged"? "Hey, you chose something that wouldn't
affect
combat effectivenss"?

>3) They should cause a normal threshold, no exceptions. This keeps 
>record keeping and superfluous rules down to a minimum. KISS.

This I agree with.

The Bells, said:
> The only plausible PSB for an EMP missile is that it generates a very
large EMP
> event VERY close to the hull (probably within the hull via cascade
ionizing
> radiation).

I don't buy that, especially if you extrapolate the EMP _game_mechanic_
to
muliple potential PSB's as per the "generic" underpinnings of Full
Thrust.
Examples: 
1) Read "Stasis" for EMP. The pulse "locks-up" systems by affecting
their
temporal state.
2) A "Phase Gun" a-la Trek. Systems hit by the efect are "out of phase"
and
inoperable until they can be re-tuned into the correct variance by
damage
control.
3) Viral Nannites (delivered by missiles or "projection beams" -
short-lived
nanobots that physcally and electrically disrupt systems, but are easy
to
kill.

Genre weapons and "Hard Sci Fi" conversions are one thing, bu I try not
to
get wedded to a specific PSB when looking at a broad game mechanic.

>From Alan Brain:

> "Damaged" means inoperative until repaired.
> "Destroyed" means permanently incapacitated until a shipyard repairs
the
ship.

Full Thrust, meet Magic the Gathering. :-)

There is either a written or house rule that says damage control can
make 3
attemtps oin a system before it is considered "irreperable" at least for
the
scenario. I prefer that.