RE: System Failures

Simple and neat.  I like it.  Also goes along better with the "1" is
bad, "6" is good paradigm of weapons damage.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Sent: Nov 17, 2003 1:25 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: System Failures

Tim Bancroft wrote:

> >No. While it would shorten the rules' text somewhat, I think you'd be
> >surprised by the number of mathematically challenged players who'd
have
> >serious difficulties getting the target number right . (I know I was
> >surprised by it!)
>
>Actually, probably not and you are right to point it out.  Confession:
I
>_teach_ such basic maths and IT to "adults"

<shudder> Then you would know what I'm talking about, yes...

> >FWIW I'd prefer to adopt the Ion Cannon mechanic for the standard
threshold
> >checks instead, so a roll equal to or less than the number of rows
you've
> >lost is a failure (ie., if you've lost 1 hull row you only lose
system to
> >rolls of  '1', if you've lost 2 rows you lose systems to rolls of '2'
or '1'
>
>Given the above this would be easier.	[...] Get's my vote (FWIW!).

Thanks <g> Now let's see if we can sway Jon, too...

/Oerjan

oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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