Prev: Re: ft-Next weapon of the week? af sml Next: Re: ft-Next weapon of the week? af sml

RE: [FT] WotW 2 and General EMP

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:49:05 +1100
Subject: RE: [FT] WotW 2 and General EMP

G'day guys,

Noam wrote:
 >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.

I'm obviously in a difficult mood this week as I just don't see the 
distinction, but ignore me I'll agree to disagree on this one.

 >Most people can, after a few games,
 >roll thresholds on even big ships pretty quickly...

I agree, but I still think that a simple designation system and rolling
few dice will be MUCH quicker ;)

 >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.

I'd thought of that scenario and didn't really mind it as all "cause 
threshold checks to all" weapons are going to suffer this problem unless

you ban simultaneous EMP and standard strikes (bit hard to PSB for
K-guns I 
would've thought). Besides if the Von Teg wants to hurt itself its fine 
with me there's no guarantee I'm ever going to hit it in the future
anyway ;)

George suggested:
 >How about making up chits or cards or something.

Personally George I like this idea, but given the heat that chit pulling
DS seems to cause in some quarters I can't see it being a universally 
accepted option for FT.

Schoon suggested:
 >least MASS to largest MASS
<and then Bif suggested the opposite ;)>

While this is probably OK for FB ships with the "info sheet" already
I don't like the idea I'd have to carry around an extra info sheet of 
masses so my atrocious memory won't let me down mid game and how do I 
decide between 2 systems in the same category with the same mass? To
the truth I probably wouldn't actually care which order people rolled,
I know a few gamers that would sit down and work out exactly which order

they should roll to minimize the effects, I'd really not have to deal
the frustration! Its one of the beauties of FT that there is so little
game "fiddling" that can occur.

The Bells commented:
 >Every other EMP weapon only causes
 >threshold checks for group 3 systems,
 >which only includes sensors, fire control
 >systems, area defence FC's, and weapons
 >which incorporate their own fire control
 >(PDS, spicules, and scatterguns[so far]).

I don't know enough engineering to disagree with you on that one ;)

 >So EMP afflicted ships roll for group 3
 >systems, and on the following turn (when
 >replacing their burned out normal sensors)
 >consider all targets that they were
 >not tracking as cloaked

Nope that's where you lost me, I'd be happy to restrict EMP effects to
"group 3" stuff, but I'd really rather skip bookkeeping and just say
if they're knocked out then they must be fixed as normal.

Then Donogh suggested:
 >Attacker chooses one system,
 >Defender chooses two systems,
 >D6 = 5, 6 : Systems chosen are taken out.
 >It's simple: only one roll, no bookeeping....

Noam probably won't go for this, but of all the compromises called for 
today I like it the most. It captures Noam (and others) "defender
preference as well as giving the firer some chance of knocking out the 
thing they really wanted to get rid of in the first place.

I'll shut up now... if you're lucky ;)



Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053

Prev: Re: ft-Next weapon of the week? af sml Next: Re: ft-Next weapon of the week? af sml