Re: MTM Ranges, Fighters et al

Beth wrote:
>  >The "variable" version feels a bit too short-ranged though.
> 
> We've found the same thing, add an extra CEF to each category and they

> should be OK though (just a punt, not tested).

The Long and Medium range, yes (in my experience). I've tried 2-range
2D6 
warheads, and 3-range 2D6 warheads, and the latter is only a little more

powerful while leading to a somewhat more enjoyable game.

The short range OTOH becomes way too powerful. The big (and deliberate) 
disadvantage of the whacking great 3D6 or EMP warhead is that the range
of it 
is 18" - really short compared with an SM - and, like an SM it must hit
the 
closest target (no secondary move). 

Up its endurance to 2, and it gets to either hit at 36" - which is not
such a 
big deal, the extra damage (of 2.5 of em) compared to a SMR-ER is
compensated 
for by telegraphing the punch and greater vulnerability to PDS - or (far
more 
effective!!) have an 18" range with secondary move so you pick your
target. The 
first seems a little OTT, the last way OTT.

Howza bout this:
Short range(3D6) - Endurance 1, Medium(2D6) Endurance 3, Long(1D6)
endurance 5 
would be OK though. But if using this, we should look very carefully at
the 
Launcher plus MTM-at-1-mass combo as it may then be unbalanced, with the

ability (over time) to flush a whole heap of 1D6-damage missiles to
overload 
defences. Then again, it would take so much time any manoeuvering target
would 
be able to dodge quite well... I've not found that the launcher + mag
combo is 
as effective as an equivalent mass of MTMs in racks, with one
conspicuous 
exception: they are great as scarecrows for chasing away (or killing)
escorts. 
12 mass of 6 MTMs is what you want when hunting big game. But when
sniping off 
or scaring away the BJs and small fry, a missile launcher and 9 reloads
is 
better. Better still is a launcher with 1 SM and 7 MTMs. 

Other things about MTMs, Fighters et al.

I think we can agree that Fighters in base contact with multiple
MTMs/SMs can 
split fire? This will usually occur if they're escorting a capital ship
of 
course.

Also fighters that successfully KO an MTM are vulnerable to being caught
in the 
explosion, as per when they fire at SMs? Use same rules.

Some other thoughts about Fighters, Morale etc:

Rather than having a roll of over current strength causing all fighters
to 
break off, perhaps you just deduct the excess from the number able to
fire - so 
a 4-fighter group that rolls a 6 has 6-4=2 of its 4 fighters unable to
fire 
(but still using an endurance...) Use this one if you prefer your
fighters to 
just lose lock-on due to evasion of enemy defences, rather than cravenly
refuse 
to press home the attack.

Also if any fighter group rolls a 1, they can do (must do?) a Sheridan -
lose a 
fighter, but the target takes (1D6? 1pt?) from the Kamikaze. The PSB
here might 
be either a fatally wounded pilot doing what damage he can, to one who
is a 
genuine kamikaze, to one who just pulls up from his attack run a bit too
late.

I can imagine a scenario in the KV assault on the Core where Human
fighters use 
this rule, and maybe do so on a 1 or 2... The Battle of the Line and all
that.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using the AustarMetro Internet Web Mail System.
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/