Re: FT-Fighters and launch bays

> >
> Yes, but even in the Tuffleyverse there's nothing
> to stop the French player (for instance) from
> creating jeep carriers or supercarriers that get
> a LOT more fighters to the battle than you might
> expect. I create my own custom SSD's for my
> FT Starfleet, so I can't expect the other players

What I was trying to say though, is that in competition games, maybe
only
"official" designs should be used.  This gives everyone an idea of what
they
could face.  Everyone starts on the same footing.

> not to do so. That's why some kind of agreement
> (either a formal one, or an informal one) can
> be useful.

I beleive that is what I was saying.  Playing in a genre is agreement by
all
involved.

Without everyone's agreement, you can't really have a consitent genre.
IMagine playing Star Trek and having spelljammers attack, not in genre.
Wheras carriers with many many fighters, and purely defensive weapons
are in
genre for say Battlestar Galactica, while in Star Wars, the Battelships
also
double as carriers.

I've always seen Full Thrust as a game meant (and needing) to simulate a
specific background, even if its made up by the local gaming group.  Any
wide open point based system like Full Thrust, and the Hero system among
others is broken without a set of limiations.  Playing in an agreed
genere
usually provides those limitations.

If games are played in the vacuum of no background, then there's room
for
all kinds of abuse.

It is my belief, though I could be wrong, that the game was not designed
to
be a
point-based-build-the-deadliest-cheapest-fleet-and-detroy-everyone-game
like GW games tend to be.  I had the impression that the game was wide
open
to let people make up, or play in the sci-fi genree's that they love.

George