RE: Re: Fighters

laserlight wrote:

>Well, there's a difference between "not optimized" and "not usable". 
Brit 
>ships in WW2 weren't optimized for combat but they still were useful.

True, but I haven't heard that the FB1 designs were useless, just
inferior.  
Would you play a WWII ship combat game that skewed the rules in favor of

Brit ships, or US ships, or any other power, rather than reflect the
reality 
of the day?

> >[free to change rules to suit yourself] is also true of a game set in
the 
>Tuffleyverse, and I see no reason to change the rules to suit that
specific 
>setting.
>
>That doesn't address tournaments, conventions, pickup games, or people
who 
>like the background and/or don't like to tinker.

No, but neither does readjusting the rules to suit them serve anyone
else 
very well.  Perhaps a set of rules specific to the tuffleyverse would
make a 
good supplement, or optional rules, but any changes to the core system
that 
makes them integral would still be something I'd hate to see.

> >One option that someone mentioned is to allow PDS and ADFC to defend 
>against multiple fighter groups.  I'm starting to warm to that idea.
>
>Ah!  Okay, so would you just say "PDS as is, but applies to all inbound

>attacks", or would you tweak anything?

I don't know.  I didn't say I totally favor the idea or am espousing it
yet, 
I haven't even fully considered it (haven't had time since I've been at
work 
since it was mentioned),  I just said I'm WARMING to it.

>Note that any changes need not be "standard", ie they could be just as 
>optional as Wave Guns.

THAT is the best comment I've heard yet regarding them.

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.