Re: (FT) BETA fighter rules, comments

Before Easter broke out, Matt Tope wrote:

>I have just returned from a very extended gaming weekend in which we
tried 
>out the new fighter rules posted on the list a few weeks back. The 
>comments that I can think of are as follows;

Thanks for the report!

[positive comments snipped]

>Whether as a result of the vagaries of dice rolls or the gods of
chance, 
>1-4 salvo missiles lobbed into an enemy fleet numbering about 4000pts 
>somehow seemed to survive defensive fire and get a few missiles in on 
>target (never decisive strikes, but some nasty hits inflicted), whilst
1-6 
>AMT's/PBL strength 1's fired at the same fleet would normally all be 
>negated. Very odd.

I've recieved similar reports from several other groups too, and unlike
the 
Graser case I have neither maths analyses nor enough personal experience

with this PB-vs-PD game mechanic to file these reports as "extreme die 
rolls" ;-)

It seems that a -1 target's DRM against PD fire doesn't give the PBs and

AMTs enough protection when every PDS in the area of effect can target
them 
*and* the defenders get to fire one ship's PDS at a time (allowing them
to 
minimize overkills), so this is an area we need to work more on. As an 
interim solution, try changing the PB/AMT -1 target's DRM vs PD-mode
fire 
to -2 (though keep Scatterguns at D3-1 for now - think of it as
"(D6-2)/2 
if you like <g>); this still tones them down a bit compared to the FB2 
rules since most weapons get rerolls against them, but not as much as
the 
beta-test rules currently do.

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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