> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> -MWS- wrote:
Wrong right back at you. Read the section on PDS - page 7 of the FB
rules -
*carefully*. The example specifically states "if two PDS are allocated against
a single missile >SALVO<" [emphasis is mine].
Since it is impossible to kill two MT missiles with a single PDS, the rules
allowing a 6 to give two missile kills makes no sense whatsoever. As a
result, the old rules in MT stating that PDAFs - and by extension PDS -
require a 6 to kill an MT missile should remain in effect.
This is reinforced if you read the additional explanitory text on page 12 of
the Fleet Book. There, it does states (under the PDS section):
"Against Fighter or SMBs, roll 1 die per PDS...".
Clearly, the rules changes for PDS against missiles don't extend to the older
MT missiles, otherwise the text would have read "Fighters and Missiles"
instead of "Fighters and SMBs".
> Similarly, the "Class-1 beam batteries as point defence" only talks
I believe you are wrong again. While the text on Class 1 PDS on page 7 don't
specifically mention missile >salvos<, the text on page 12 *does*. Again, a
quote:
"... scores of 5 or 6 kill 1 fighter or 1 missile from SM salvo."
To me, this is a pretty clear indication that the older More Thrust rules
concerning point defense against MT Missiles remain in effect - even for
FLeet Book designs.
> > Only to a point - consider this: MT Missiles *still* require a
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I *thought* this question came up
shortly after the FleetBook came out, and Jon (T) responded that MT missiles
reacted to (or rather, were acted upon by) PDS in the same manner
as Salvo Missiles (ie, an MT missile was taken out on a roll of 4-6 -
but each MT missile was considered *one* salvo [emphasis mine;)]).
If I have time (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! "if I have time" - I kill me!
:)
I'll try wading through the archives to find this, or my own backlogged emails
to see if I saved it.
Mk
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, It'll be cool, it'll be fun...it's gonna *suck* wrote:
[snip]
> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I *thought* this question
Well, I wasn't around on the list until recently, so my apologies in advance
if I'm rehashing old ground:).
I do sincerely hope that you are wrong, however. If true, it effectively
neuters the MT missile as an effective weapons system and kills one of the
underpinnings of my fleet design philosophy. If the original PDS rules stand,
the costs/damage/effectiveness of the MT missile is barely worth while
as it
is, based upon average expected damage vs point/mass costs. If the MT
missile is treated as a solo salvo, however, then the mass/point cost is
way too high, IMO. Big bummer.
> If I have time (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! "if I have time" - I kill
Tanks, bub! <g>.
This was the question Mk *probably* remembers. IMO the same ruling applies
to PDS - that is if it applies to Salvo Launched Missiles (SLM's) it
applies to MT missiles too.
The second post is interesting as at makes the same observations as Mark
(MWS)
that MT captial missiles are a weapon of the past.
I abstracted most of these old FB questions into the FAQ so I don't think
there is anything specific in the archives about PDS, but feel free to search
(without a search engine Jerry? werz it gone)
-- NAC archive retrieval follows.........
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 20:33:17 +0100
From: Ground Zero Games
Subject: Re: FB clarification [FAQ]
> Can a fighter screen intercept an MT missile? IIRC the example in the
Yes, and yes.
Jon (GZG)
> tim jones
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 00:42:12 +0100
From: Tony Wilkinson
Subject: Re: FB clarification [FAQ]
[snipped same question as in previous archive post Ed.]
Last question first. The MT missile is there and is Mass 2 costing 6 points.
With the number of PDS about (there does seem to be more as class 1
batteries hit fighters/missiles on 5 and 6 plus the way the new ADFC
rules work...) they ain't gonna survive too long. Still for those who like
fleets of bathtub launchers this is good news. You'll find them in the list of
systems in the design section. Yes fighters can intercept missiles within 6"
hitting on 5 and 6. For fighters and class 1 batteries the hits do only a
single hit but the 6 still allows rerolls. This seems to be the case whatever
the target. My feeling is, and I haven't played with the FB rules yet, is that
fighter combat is going to be just as short as before and even messier, and
that missiles (the old type or SML) is going to be a killer on isolated small
ships but not so good against a compact group with heavy ships among them. The
pulse torp has always been my weapon of choice and that looks like becoming
even more so.
Tony.
-MWS- wrote in reply to Mk's reply to -MWS-'s reply to me:
> > Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I *thought* this question
same manner
> > as Salvo Missiles (ie, an MT missile was taken out on a roll of 4-6
It is in the FT FAQ as well - yes, the FAQ answers are official. The
question concerned fighters intercepting MT missiles (my wrong - I
didn't remember they could do it!), but if an MT missile is regarded as a
"one-missile salvo" when fighters attack it, it seems *very* likely that
point defences regard it as such as well <g>
> Well, I wasn't around on the list until recently, so my apologies in
Accepted :-)
> I do sincerely hope that you are wrong, however. If true, it
It doesn't neuter it, but it does tone it down considerably. Since the
missiles were the second-ranking generator of complaints of powergaming
(the Kra'Vak being first, and the A-batteries third) in the FT/MT rules,
they needed toning down IMO... Besides, it is quite a bit easier to get the
things on target if you use Vector movement than under Cinematic,
even if you fire them from very far away :-/
> and kills one of the underpinnings of my fleet design philosophy. If
Depends on what movement rules (and what speeds and thrust ratings) you
usually play with. I didn't have problems with MT missiles since I usually
flew too fast for them to catch many of my ships, but... well, there has been
lots of complaint about them from players who fly slower. Massed missiles
against slow fleets could be really ugly.
> based upon average expected damage vs point/mass costs.
If the target doesn't have any point defence, the average expected damage of
an MT missile is exactly the same as that of an SM salvo fired from an
SML with a Mass 4 magazine - the difficulty to hit with them is IMO
about the same (namely, predicting where the enemy ships will end up). With
your interpretation of the PDS/missile interaction, the MT missile is
better than the SM salvo... well, I don't consider the SMLs merely "barely
worthwhile", and anything better than them is pretty good indeed.
With the official interp the MT missiles are worse than the SMs in raw average
damage, but they have several offsetting advantages compared with
SMs - eg, the (very) long range, the smaller Mass per missile (ie, MT
missiles can be carried on smaller ships than SMs), their ability to choose
targets instead of going for the closest in range (that one's arguable,
though) and the fact that there are no EMP SMs. (With the reduced number of
Screens in FB fleets, EMP missiles are outright
scary...)
Regards,