A pseudo-errata for Fleet Book 2:
Sa'Vasku Stingers. Most of us have read More Thrust and expect the Stingers of
the FB Sa'Vasku to do more damage as you add power to it (like the Energy
Pulse did for the MT Sa'Vasku). However, this is implied, but not spelled out
in FB2.
Implied statements: "The Stinger Node is the Sa'Vasku equivalent of a standard
FT beam weapon, except that its output is variable according to how much power
is allocated to each shot" "Example 1: A Sa'Vasku ship has 6 PP available for
a stinger shot; if it was to engage a target within 12 mu, it would get to
roll 6 dice; at up to 24 mu, 3 dice; and up to 36 mu 1 die only"
But, excluding the examples, it only addresses the power cost of range for a 1
die shot. It does not address the power cost for increasing damage at a given
range.
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> A pseudo-errata for Fleet Book 2:
if it was to engage a target within 12 mu, it would get to roll 6 dice;
> at up to 24 mu, 3 dice; and up to 36 mu 1 die only"
It gives you the power cost of each separate die at each range. The cost of
firing 2 dice at a given range is 2x the cost of firing 1 die at that range;
the cost of firing 3 dice at a given range is 3x the cost of firing 1 die at
that range, etc.
Regards,
It gives you the cost for a 1-die shot. It does NOT explicitly say that
you can spend multiples of that amount for multiple dice of damage. I
understand that that is how it works, and it is implied in the example, but it
does not state it.
It also says "a single stinger node may handle any required amount of power
for each shot", but that was immediately following the cost of a 1-die
shot per range, not that multiples of the chart can be used for multiple
damage. It also states that each stinger may only be fired once per turn. So
if one did not read the example, one could think that each stinger can only do
1 point of damage (but power cost varies with range). Again, I understand that
that is not the case, but it does not explicitly state that extra power may be
used to increase the number of dice per shot.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyeahble/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> It gives you the cost for a 1-die shot. It does NOT explicitly say that
That's why we put examples in the books, to clarify the way a rule
works! ;-)
I think I can kind of see what you're getting at, but I thought the rule was
clear enough as it stood. Did anyone else read it this way when they first
looked at it? If so, then there may be an argument for putting it in the
errata just to make sure.
Jon (GZG)
> -----
> On 7-Jun-00 at 18:00, Ground Zero Games (jon@gzg.com) wrote:
I was unsure, but the example cleared it up.
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> It gives you the cost for a 1-die shot. It does NOT explicitly say
That's why the examples are there, you know... You write "if one did
not read the examples". One is *supposed* to read the examples :-/
However, your quote is a bit off. The rule does not say that "each stinger may
only be fired once per turn"; it says that "each node may only fire at one
target in any given turn". Your way to phrase it may imply that you're not
allowed to fire multiple dice, but the rule's actual phrasing doesn't have
this implication.
Regards,
Oerjan, I respect your opinions, but cannot agree with you here. I did
misquote the text as you indicated. However, as written it has the same
effect, unless you are saying that it can fire more than once per turn
(something that no other weapon in FT can do, and something that the text does
not state that the Singers can do). If I am wrong and it does state that they
may fire more than once per turn or may apply extra power for extra dice of
damage, please indicate the sentence (other than the example, which implies it
but does not state it). The closest line I found was the Stinger Node "output
is variable according to how much power is allocated to each shot." Which does
not indicate what it means by output and is followed by 2 paragraphs
describing how the power varies with RANGE, not damage. I am not arguing that
extra power may be put into the weapon to do extra damage (as I have stated
before), only that the rules do not SPECIFICALLY STATE (only imply) that they
can do so. I think that it would be good to add the fact that 'Stingers may
use multiples of the power required to do a
1-die shot to do extra dice of damage' to the FAQ/Errata.
Power Points Required Range 1d6 2d6 3d6 4d6 5d6 6d6...
0-12 1 2 3 4 5 6
12.x-24 2 4 6 8 10 12
24.x-36 4 8 12 16 24 28
36.x-48 8 16 24 32 40 48
48.x-60 16 32 48 64 80 96
60.x-72 32 64 96 128 160 192
etc. The above chart provides range along the left hand side of the chart and
dice of damage along the top of the chart and provides an indexed power point
cost for the shot.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
This i show i play the Savasku and all of the players in our group feel the
same, in that to get more dice you mutliply the power needed for one die of
damage by the number of dice you require.
Although 5d5 should be 20 and 6d6 should be 24 for
24 - 36 range
[quoted original message omitted]
Thanks! Corrected table: Power Points Required Range 1d6 2d6 3d6 4d6 5d6 6d6
...
0-12 1 2 3 4
5 6
12.x-24 2 4 6 8
10 12
24.x-36 4 8 12 16
20 24
36.x-48 8 16 24 32
40 48
48.x-60 16 32 48 64
80 96
60.x-72 32 64 96 128 160
192 etc.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> Power Points Required
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> I am not arguing that extra power may be put into the weapon to do
The rules text does not specifically state that a single Stinger can fire
multiple dice. The two examples which follows the rule and shows the author's
intention specifically state that it can do so.
> Power Points Required
Apart from a few erroneous values in the 24-36mu range bracket, this
table is correct. Unfortunately, if it is read the way you read the rule, it
effectively says that no stinger may fire more than 6 dice in one turn
- because the table stops at 6 dice. Unless the table is infinitely
wide it only moves the problem without solving it, and you *still* need to
rely on the example to understand the rule author's intent.
Regards,