Re: IJN/UNSC technology

Anthony Leiback wrote:

>How about a Grazer  as the name has not been used for a weapon  by the
list.

A "grazer" is someone who "grazes". According to my dictionary, "to
graze" 
either means "to eat grass" or "to touch/scratch lightly". Cows are 
examples of the former type of grazers, and from your description of the

weapon the latter meaning of the word is completely inappropriate -
either 
it hits hard or it doesn't hit at all, but it doesn't scratch.

A "graser" is short for "gamma-ray laser", which could work OK as a 
starship weapon.

>My concept:
>Slightly less accurate than beams, able to cut through armour and to
cause
>horrendous amounts of damage to unsheilded targets due to cascading
>damage
>
>Details:
>3 classes Grazer A B C (the names mean nothing, you could call them
Light,
>Medium, Heavy which would make more sense)
>Masses and ranges same as beam 4,5 and 6
>To hit at up to half max range 5-6, over half to max 6

If this is "one to-hit roll per weapon" (as for eg. P-torps), this is 
*vastly* less accurate than the beams.

>Damage:
>Lights roll 1 die,Mediums 2 dice, Heavys 4 dice. Damage equals dice
total
>Against armoured targets  1 DP of each die takes out an armour box, the
rest
>goes on the hull

Ie. same armour penetration as SV Lance pods

>If the target is unshielded rolls of 5 and 6 are re-rolled and damage
is
>totally against hull .

Average damage per die is 5.25

>If target has shield 1, only rolls of 6 are re-rolled

Average damage per die is 4.2

>If shield 2, no re-rolls.

Average damage per die is 3.5

>Phalons shrouds as in FB 2 are treated as shield 2 but Phalon carapace
is
>slightly more complex
>One layer is treated as armour (i.e absorbs 1 dp of each die)
>A second layer absorbs a further 2 dp, third layer 3 dps this includes
>damage from re-rolls and if there is a fourth layer it would absorb a
>further 4 dps

Why not simply use the standard Phalon-armour-vs-K rule?

>Cost:
>Perhaps 4 x mass

Can't say I agree with Noam's BoE analysis :-/ I get the average damage 
against unscreened targets to:

MU		0-12	-24	-36	-48	-60	-72
Beam 4	3.2	2.4	1.6	.80	0	0
Grazer A	1.75	1.75	.875	.875	0	0

Beam 5	4.0	3.2	2.4	1.6	.80	0
Grazer B	3.5	3.5	3.5/1.75	1.75	1.75	0

Beam 6	4.8	4.0	3.2	2.4	1.6	.80
Grazer C	7.0	7.0	7.0	3.5	3.5	3.5
Grazer C (3die) 5.25	5.25	5.25	2.625	2.625	2.625

Screens have a similar effect on these grazers as they have on beams -
the 
grazer is degraded slightly less by level-2 screens, but that difference
is 
small.enough to disappear into the background noise and can be ignored.

Looking at the above figures I'd rate the Grazer A as seriously inferior
to 
the B4, the Grazer B as somewhat stronger than the B5 and the Grazer C
as 
far more powerful than the B6 no matter whether the Grazer C rolls 3 or
4 
dice to damage.

Assuming a cost of 4xMASS I get the following MASS ratings :

Grazer A		5 MASS +1 or +2 /extra arc
Grazer B		16 MASS +4/extra arc (same as B5)
Grazer C (3 dice)	42 MASS +11/extra arc
Grazer C (4 dice)	56 MASS +14/extra arc

Schoon wrote:

>...that with the new MASS they should be "massaged"
>so that they keep the 3xMASS point cost that the rest of the weapons
>generally keep.

Err... weapons don't generally keep a 3xMASS points cost. Look in FB2
for 
several examples to the contrary :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry