RE: [FT] Needle Beam questions

Yes. Needle beam damage may not be repaired (in the time frame of a FT
battle).

Yes. Engines and FCS should be legitimate targets for these systems.
Engines
already take 2 strikes from a Needle to kill (the 1st one reduces the
drive
by 1/2), so you could say that they are already heavily armored. Most
ships
have multiple FCS (escorts being an exception), so you could call that
multiple redundant systems. So no exception needs to be made for the
primary
targets of Needle Beams.

The Needle Beam is just about at the cost/mass/limitations that it
should
be. Not counting the systems it can destroy, it only does 1 point of
damage.
It only has a 1 in 6 chance to take out a system. It is limited to 1
arc.
And it is massive/costly for its effectiveness.

It is the only system that gives a group of small ships (FF and below) a
chance agianst larger ships (BC and above). MT missiles did this when
they
were only hit by a 6, but now that they are hit by 5-6, they are much
less
effective.

The Needle Beam is a _little_ bit over-costed as it stands. But this is
how
it should be to keep it a niche weapon. This is one of the reasons that
I
am, somewhat, dubious of the Needle variations that have been posted to
the
list. If you make this weapon too effective, it will become manditory on
ships to be effective (like the "A" beams and screens in FT 2nd
Edition).

The only fleet that I have faced (since FB) with a large number of
Needle
Beams was at attack by Laserlight's IF strikeboats. In most situations,
they
are not cost effective.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morgan Vening [SMTP:morgan@optushome.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:25 AM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	[FT] Needle Beam questions
> 
> I'm looking at the concept of Needle Beams, and can't find my FT 
> rulebook currently. The FAQ and my memory recalls, Needle 
> Beam damage can't typically be repaired. The problem I see, is 
> how this affects non-weapon systems. The FAQ uses the example 
> of blowing the weapons mount to bits. This I have no problem with.
> 
> What I see as being the problem is that Fire Controls and Engines 
> will be the most common target of these systems. Not being 
> repairable I can see being a big problem, if I make a fleet with NB's 
> as it's primary weapon system. So, I'll open up the floor.
> 
> Do people think FC's and Engines should not be targetable by 
> NB's? Much like Control Systems for FC's their main 
> instrumentation would be internal, with multiple redundant external 
> systems? And Engines being too large/armoured to be affected by 
> the precision strikes?
> 
> Or, do people think that the damage from NB's against these 
> systems should be repairable? Rerouting of the energy conduits for 
> an engine, changing to a redundant system for Fire Control?
> 
> Or a combination of the two? Engines not being destroyable, FC's 
> being repairable, or vice versa.
> 
> Or, do people think NB's should just not be permitted, full stop? 
> Which would be a shame as I am working on a house set for an	
> Islamic fleet, and figured maneuverable and precise would be a 
> good thematic concept.
>