Re: ADFC, Vector, SMs and Fighters...

At 7:17 PM -0400 8/11/01, Laserlight wrote:
>Ryan said:
> > However, certain elements have begun to argue that ADFC should also
> > be reduced to 3" under this rule. This flies in the face of the
> > reasoning for the original reduction of attack range.
>
>You reduce the missile (and fighter, if you like) attack radius in
>Vector because the ship's destination is much more predictable than in
>Cinematic.  If you had 6" attack radius, you could not miss any ship
>that was thrust 6 or less.   But this has nothing to do with ADFC.

Aye, that was my understanding, however there has been a certain 
e-mail based ruling that I'm concerned Jon made erroneously. ie that 
ADFC range _is_ reduced.

This has far reaching consequences with regards to the balance with 
the Aliens (I'm sure the Phalon players would like nothing else but 
for Human ships to bunch up even further...).

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -