Re: [GZG] [Aliens] was Re: FMA at EEC etc

John Tailby wrote:

>>>I didn't take it as rude as much as not interested. it sounded like a
>>>classic case of "not invented here".
>>
>>I asked earlier, but didn't see a response. Do you have any specifics
>>as to what happened? Can you repost your comments, so that the test
>>listers can do a better job of replying?
>
>It's not easy to go back through the posts the questions come down to:
>
>What are the current version of the rules being play tested?

There is no single "current version". There are the combined
FT2/MT/FB1/FB2 
rules, plus several more-or-less-separate rule modifications some of
which 
are mutually exclusive.

>Where is a copy of the version of the play test rules so people can do 
>battles of their own and provide feedback?

There is no full copy of the playtest rules, as in "a coherent rules
set". 
There is a fairly large number of separate files, each containing one or

more rules modifications to the published rules. Some of those files
have 
GZG approval for public alpha- or beta-release, and they (or at least
links 
to them) have been posted here; others haven't been approved which means

that we aren't allowed to discuss them publicly.

>NB this means the "full rules" not just the fighter rules that have
been 
>floating around for some years. From discussions it became apparent
that a 
>lot of other changes have been made that impact the whole contentious
area 
>of ships shooting at ordnance.

As far as I can remember our discussions back then encountered one such 
rule that was not included in the beta-test fighter/ordnance rules,
namely 
the change to SV spicules. That was a double omission on my part:

1) I had forgotten that it was a change from the FB2 version at all - 
during the FB2 playtesting spicules *were* initially allowed to use 
multiple power points, but that ability was removed just before FB2 went
to 
print.

2) Since (contrary to what I remembered) it was a change from FB2, and
the 
Sa'Vasku playtest rules of which this change was a part haven't been
fully 
approved for beta-release, any mentions of the Sa'Vasku should have been

deleted from the beta-test fighter/ordnance rules before it was released
to 
the public.

>What are the changes to the rules being tested about ships shooting at 
>ordnance?
>How many fire control of what types etc?

There are multiple such systems at the moment. The one which has been 
approved for beta-release has been posted here, in two versions: the
full 
version which explains everything three times over and therefore looks
far 
more complex than it actually is (I'm fairly certain that a link to it
was 
posted during that discussion, but I can't recall if you actually read
it), 
and Laserlight's short-hand version (which I know you have read since
you 
spotted a couple of important omissions in it).

>What changes have been made to weapons e.g. the stinger overload rule?

See above about the status of the Sa'Vasku playtest rules.

>I also saw something that suggested that scatter packs were only D3
kills 
>per pack and no longer had ADFC built in.

That was the beta-test fighter/ordnance/PDS rules already mentioned
above.

>What new technologies such as stealth have been developed and what are 
>their rules?

Those which have been approved for beta-testing are published on the 
various fleet beta-test web sites (UNSC, IF, ORC etc.).

>What are the exact rules for anti matter missiles?

The current rules for AMTs are published on the UNSC beta-test web page,
to 
which Star Ranger recently posted the link.

>The wording proposed sounded like they "attack every ship within 3MU"

The exact wording of the UNSC AMT rule is:

"After the ship movement phase, the AMT moves up to 6mu (3mu in vector) 
from the marker towards nearest target before detonating.

On detonation, all ships within 1mu of marker take 3D6 damage, within
2mu 
2D6, within 3mu 1D6."

The rule very deliberately does NOT say that AMTs "attack" anything.

You paraphrased this rule to read "AMTs attack every ship within 3mu",
and 
then built a set of objections against your own interpretation of your
own 
paraphrase of the rule - but since the AMT rule didn't actually say what

you claimed it said, those objections weren't very relevant to the
actual 
AMT rule.

My apologies if I failed to explain this in a polite enough way, both
the 
last time and this time - I'm just not very good at telling people that
a 
word they think they read doesn't exist in the text they are reading :-(

>and they don't make attack runs like normal missiles so more like a
human 
>version of the plasma bolt than a missile.

That is *exactly* what the wording in the AMT rule means, yes.

>What is the exact turn sequence?

If you don't use the beta-test fighter/missile/etc. rules, the turn 
sequence in FB2 is used.

If you do use the beta-test fighter/missile/etc. rules, the turn
sequence 
in those rules is used.

AFAIK no other variations of the turn sequence have been approved for 
public beta-release.

>there were some questions about the wording in the rules that didn't
look 
>like it made sense but a look at a clean set of play test rules should 
>make sense of that.

Since there is currently no such "clean set of play test rules" to look
at, 
much less one which is approved for beta-release, we can't  provide you 
with one at this time. Sorry.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se

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

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l