Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

On 29 Oct 2015, at 09:54, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:03:06PM +1100, Hugh Fisher wrote:
>> I can imagine the presence or absence of FTL making a difference in
>> campaigns, but for the typical tabletop battle it's just everyone
losing 10%
>> of their mass.
> 
> While I deplore the stand-up "keep fighting until one side is
> eliminated" battle, I have to admit that it's what a lot of people
> like to play. In that case FTL effectively just makes the ship
> construction system slightly more complex without game effect.
> 
> While I like the battleship/battlerider question, it's rarely come up
> in actual play.
> 
> R
> 

Roger and Hugh, you both make very valid points here, and I'd be
interested in everyone else's opinions on it too.

It is entirely true that FTL has no game effect in the majority of
situations - I don't know how many players have ever used the "arrival
out of FTL" rules in a game….anyone here? The only other real effect
that you get in game terms by having FTL drives as a separate ship
system is that loss of them will strand the damaged ship in-system by
making escape to FTL impossible, but again that is quite a minor factor
and more of use in campaign terms than a one-off game.

As a completely off-the-cuff suggestion, that I haven't thought through
at all, how about doing away with the FTL drive as a "paid for" system
and making it into a fourth Core System alongside the Command (Bridge),
Life Support and Power Core icons?

Feel free to discuss the ramifications of this, or indeed any other
ideas on the matter…….

Jon (GZG)