I managed to delete Beth's reply before I could answer it, but I think I
remember most of what you said:
Re - bad spelling: Don't worry; my spelling is lousy as well.
Throughout the entire post I spelled "individual" as "superior" <g>
Re - ECM: I'm afraid you didn't quote straight out of MT. There are two
types of ECM, but they're called Individual and Area; it still isn't entirely
obvious from the designs which one you mean unless you start checking how big
the designs are.
What I called "Superior ECM" was indeed the Individual one, so all the ECM
comments are still valid if you replace "Superior" with
"Individual" :-/ As, for example, in the line below:
> Erebus Arsenalship: Ha... hm. Design is legal (assuming Superior
...to which you said "It works". Well, yes, but it can't fire all its
weapons in a single turn under the published rules :-/
> Wilkes CE: ECM not specified, but the NPV and TMF strongly suggest
With Superior sensors and *Individual* ECM <g>, this one is TMF 71, NPV 290.
With Enhanced sensors, it has the specified TMF 70, NPV 274.
> Zotikov Patrol Cruiser: Assuming Superior ECM, the cost incl. std
IIRC this was the one you asked me to step through, so here goes:
Item Mass Cost
Size 70 n/a 70
Average hull 21 42 Thrust 4 14 28 FTL 7 14
Screen-1 4 12
2x C1-6 2 6
2x C2-3 4 12
2x PDS 2 6 ADFC 2 8 1 FC 1 4 Sup. Sensors 2 30 Individual ECM 2 20 Fighter bay
9 27
-------------------------------------------
Cost of ship: 70 279 Std fighter sqdn 18
G'day Oerjan,
> I managed to delete Beth's reply before I could answer it, but I think
And I thought I was having a bad day!;)
> Re - bad spelling: Don't worry; my spelling is lousy as well.
Which is exactly the kind I meant. I dug through my spreadsheet and founding
the offending cell mistake by the way thanks (yet to check it at home mind
you, but I have a feeling I've already fixed it there, guess this is definite
evidence I should update things!)
> Erebus Arsenalship: Ha... hm. Design is legal (assuming Superior
Didn't St^3 Jon clarify that one already? And the guys here have decided to
play that way anyway as the p-torp is really just a big gun not a guided
weapon (its an energy discharge and thus should be comparable to beam weapons
not missles, calling it a torpedo is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion its
really more like a cannon I would've thought).
> What did I forget?
Can't remember, I've deleted it too;)
Cheers
Beth
> At 09:01 AM 11/4/99 +1000, you wrote:
Has there been an official change in the Targeting rules for P-torps?
G'day Michael,
> Has there been an official change in the Targeting rules for P-torps?
There's been a semi-official one at least - either that or my memory
REALLY is going;)
Cheers
Beth
> Has there been an official change in the Targeting rules for P-torps?
No, Indy still has to get roll 18 on 3d6 to hit.
Hiya Beth,
My group has replaced the name Pulse Torpedo with Plasma Cannon or Plasma
Caster (depending on which one of us ya speak to and what day it is).
Bill
In a message dated 11/03/1999 5:01:38 PM Central Standard Time,
> beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:
> And the guys here have decided to
> Has there been an official change in the Targeting rules for P-torps?