[FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

16 posts ยท Aug 3 2000 to Aug 7 2000

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:55:46 -0400

Subject: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

Here are some alternatives for cutter beams:

Cutter Beam A
Mass/Cost as Class-3 Beam (max 3 arcs)
Dice: 3 hit on 4+
Range: 36tu Screen Effect: As Beam
Armor Effect: As K-Gun
Damage/Effect: Verticle Damage. If bottom hull box is damaged, ship
takes a threshold check at 6. Extra damage (past bottom row) is lost.

Cutter Beam B
Mass/Cost as Class-3 Beam (max3 arcs)
Dice: 2 hit on 4+
Range: 36tu Screen Effect: As Beam
Armor Effect: As K-Gun
Damage/Effect: Horizontal Damage. On a roll of all 6s the ship takes a
threshold check at current level (or at 6 if on 1st row).

Cutter Beam C
Mass/Cost as Class-3 Beam (max 3 arcs)
Dice: 2  hit on 4+
Range: 36tu Screen Effect: As Beam
Armor Effect: As K-Gun
Damage/Effect: Horizontal damage. If a hull with a crew factor is
destroyed, the ship takes a threshold check at the current level (or at 6 if
on 1st row). Note: This versions does not work with Sa'Vasku.

Cutter Beam D
Mass/Cost as Class-3 Beam (max 2 arc)
Dice: Hit as K-Gun, Damage = roll
Range: 30tu Screen Effect: None
Armor Effect: As K-Gun
Damage/Effect: Horizontal Damage. On a roll of 6 the ship takes a
threshold check at current level (or at 6 if on 1st row).

Cutter Beam E
Mass/Cost as Class-3 Beam (max 3 arcs)
Dice: As Beam (no rerolls) Range: 36tu Screen Effect: As Beam Armor Effect: As
Beam
Damage/Effect: Horizontal Damage. On a roll of a 6 the ship takes a
threshold check at 6 (1 system loss max).

Only version A has been play-tested.

---

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:49:25 -0700

Subject: Re: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> Cutter Beam B

Sorry it's taken so long to respond to this, but of the varients you proposed,
this would be the one I'd pick.

Could you explain the mechanic more clearly however. I don't get the dice or
range mechanic.

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:40:18 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Kevin Walker <sage@c...>

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 11:49:24 -0500

Subject: Re: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> on 8/7/00 11:40, Bell, Brian K at Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil wrote:

> Sorry, I was out of town this weekend.
against
> level-1 screened targets; 5=1, 6=1(no rerolls) for level-2 screened

I've been watching this discussion for a while. One problem I'm having with
the whole concept is the cutting/piercing nature of the attack with the
overall threshold check. To me it would feel a little more consistent if
only one or two systems were checked for threshold damage - although I
don't have a good way of determining which systems were subjected to this. I
believe someone else voiced this as well.

From: Andrew Apter <andya@s...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:20:57 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

How about if the beam caused a threshold check at the level of hull
penatration for only one type of system-- role one dice:

1. Propulsion systems ftl and maneuver drives checks. 2. non missile Heavy
weapons weapon systems of mass over 2 check. 3. non missile Light Weapons
systems of mass of 1 or 2 check. 4. Shields and shrouds. 5. Fighter bays, MT
missiles, Slavo Missiles, plasmas, pod lanchers. 6. core systems if
penatration adaquate.

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:23:40 -0700

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> >Cutter Beam B
against
> level-1 screened targets; 5=1, 6=1(no rerolls) for level-2 screened

OK, I get it now. By "All rolls of a 6" you mean that if both dice come up 6s
(boxcars), I'm thinking.

If that's the case, then why bother with the vertical damage anymore. You
already have the threshold mechanic, which is independent of the vertical
"stuff," so why bother. Particularly in light of Allan's comments concerning
the subject.

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:27:54 -0700

Subject: Re: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> I've been watching this discussion for a while. One problem I'm having

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. It keeps things more balanced.

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:33:10 -0700

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> How about if the beam caused a threshold check at the level of hull

Ack! I'd rather not roll another die if I can avoid it.

Another possibility would be to say that the ship will make 2 checks against 2
systems in a set order. For example (just off the top of my head and not a
serious or inclusive list):

Class 1s Class 2s PDS Main Drives Class 3s etc.

Just go down the list and make checks on the first ones you get to.

From: Kevin Walker <sage@c...>

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 12:38:26 -0500

Subject: Re: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> on 8/7/00 12:33, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker at s_schoon@pacbell.net wrote:

> How about if the beam caused a threshold check at the level of hull

I was thinking something along this line as well. With cutters maybe any
hull damage is a threshold check for one system - with a list of systems
like this. There are still ways to get really gamey about this if the
receiving player want to (loading up on Class 1s to absorb the damage,
choosing a system that is out of arc).

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:43:08 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

You forgot FCS, Sensors, and cargo/passenger spaces.

For limited number of loss-to-threshold, I would suggest making it
simple such as Most massive to least massive systems.

If not, I would suggest: 1. Sensors (FCS, ADFC, Sensors, ECM) & Screens
(including Vapor Shroud, Cloak, etc). 2. Engines (FTL, MD)
3. Bays (Fighter, Missile, Passenger/Cargo, Drone Wombs)
4. Large Weapons (over mass 3) and Power Centers 5. Small Weapons (mass 3 and
smaller including PDS) 6. Core Systems (if threshold level indicates).

Here is my PSB for the above. The larger the system is, the greater chance
it has to be damaged. Sensors and Screens would be spread/networked
throughout the ship. The cutter beam would sever connections until new ones
could be routed. Engines are just plain large targets. Bays are the next
largest items (if not the more massive). Weapons are the next largest. The
core systems have some additional protection, so should be less vulnerable
than other systems.

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:46:42 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:52:37 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> -----Original Message-----

Because if you stop checking after 2 checks (or even 2 losses), then the
player who's SDN was hit by the cutter beam would start with class-1s
and the cutter beam would never be able to effect screens, engines, or heavy
weapons (as the threshold losses would be on the least valuable systems).

If you limit the number of threshold checks, there must be an order that
allows a fair chance to damage more valuable systems.

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:00:10 -0700

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> You indicated the alternate 'B'. If you notice above it indicates

Erm - quite right <blush>.

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:33:15 -0700

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> Another possibility would be to say that the ship will make 2 checks

***Please note the above parenthetical remark in response to your comment
below***

> Because if you stop checking after 2 checks (or even 2 losses), then

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:37:50 -0700

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

> For limited number of loss-to-threshold, I would suggest making it

This might be different for each ship, but I agree on the idea.

> 1. Sensors (FCS, ADFC, Sensors, ECM) & Screens (including Vapor Shroud,

I'm not sure that sensors would make the #1 slot in most cases.

> 2. Engines (FTL, MD)

For carriers this would be higher.

> 4. Large Weapons (over mass 3) and Power Centers

Power centers? I'm assuming that this is a reference to Sa'Vasku Power
Generators, but as they are a part of the hull, and not normally subject to
threshold checks, I'd question including them here.

> 5. Small Weapons (mass 3 and smaller including PDS)

Other than that, it works for me.

From: Andrew Apter <andya@s...>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:03:28 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

If you are trying to get a distribution that is effected by mass you might
wish to use 2 dice and play with the distribution a little.

Something like 2. Core Systems (if threshold level indicates). 3. Small
Weapons (mass 3 and smaller including PDS). 4. Large Weapons (over mass 3) and
Power Centers.
5. Bays (Fighter, Missile, Passenger/Cargo, Drone Wombs)
6. Screens (including Vapor Shroud, Cloak, etc). 7. Engines (FTL, MD) 8.
Sensors (FCS, ADFC, Sensors, ECM)
9. Bays (Fighter, Missile, Passenger/Cargo, Drone Wombs)
10. Large Weapons (over mass 3) and Power Centers 11. Small Weapons (mass 3
and smaller including PDS) 12. Core Systems (if threshold level indicates).

The real pain is not another die roll but a chart that is too complex to
memorize.

[quoted original message omitted]