Re: [FT] Updated MT Missiles question

From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>

> > so can't make a secondary move. After ships have moved, It will
then,
> > like an SM, home in on the closest thing within 6" (3" if vector).
>
> Is this intentionally different from the original MT definition

Yes.

Of course, if they have an extra point of endurance, they can move 6" so
the closest enemy within 6" is whatever they want it to be. But they
lose
range if they do this. And the EMP and Misericorde versions can't do it
at all, they don't have the endurance to spare.

You end up with a weapon that either
a) has a really long range, but is just as random at picking targets as
an
SM
or
b) has a medium range, comparable to an SM-ER, but can pick its target,
costs
less in mass and points, does a tadge more damage, but OTOH is far
easier to
shoot down, marginally easier to dodge, is vastly more vulnerable to
fighters.

At least, that's the Standard. The Long Lance version can be launched
from
a really long distance away - 72" or 90" if you don't mind the lack of
terminal
accuracy. But does a piddly 1D6 damage. Very good for long-range
sniping,
also good for taking out escorts. The Misericorde is mainly to finish
off
cripples that can neither manouver nor have much PDS, but still have
bulk
hull.
The EMP version is most useful against ships of Komorov or Jeanne D'Arc
size,
and becomes very very effective vs SuperShips of mass 10000 and above.
So
effective
that it provides a good excuse for Jeanne D'Arc and Komarovs being about
the
largest military vessels in space. But against ships of, say, Valley
Forge
or below, a Misericorde is more effective.

There's a lot of subtlety and tactical complexity in this proposal, with
many more effects and consequences than are apparent at a glance. But
(with
the exception of EMP missiles vs Superships) they're not overpowered.