Re: Re: Cinematic vs. Vector movement

> NOT including me at all.  But your original
> "Paper-rock-scissors" jab certainly seemed like that's
> where you were lumping me.

no, that was just reductio ad absurdum

> My argument was not intended to be in that vein
> whatsoever.  Rather, my arguement is over the
> definition of the problem for which a solution is
> sought.

I thought the original post was pretty clear.

> The question is, do the rules represent vector
> movement accurately?

No, they don't.  But in fact, what that post was saying was that
in-vector-as-currently-implemented, multi-arc weapons and advanced
drives are both overpriced -- which is IMHO pretty much undeniable.