> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> Boarding Actions for FT:FB
pretty cool. i have one little detail to add. sadly, your message seems to be
split into two parts, as if the second part was an attachment, and so i can't
quote it directly.
you rule that a captured ship cannot use its ADFC, as it is not compatible
with the capturing fleet's protocol. i think this is a great idea, but i would
add that other ships in your fleet can't give it ADFC cover, for the same
reason, and that it can, of course, use it to cover other ships of the fleet
which bulit it, ie the one it belonged to before capture. there are three
reasons you might want to do this:
- multi-sided battle where your alliances have switched
- bizzarre scenario ("destroy half the enemy fleet; if the enemy cruiser
is destroyed, the princess is killed and you lose!") plus badly-targeted
SM
- you capture more than one enemy ship, and need one to defend the other
("get me that battlecruiser! and get me an aegis cruiser to go with
it!",
"yessir! and do you want fries with that?").
Tom
Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> It was accurately pointed out on the FTML that it is contrary to
Um. I beg to differ. I know of several Canadian ships that have a staff of
trained experts in boarding actions (they give extensive courses on this) that
can be assembled at short notice by the Bosun. I have a friend who has
recieved this training. The ships routinely field boarding parties from the
crew when executing assistance to customs and excise, blockade enforcement
(think Persian Gulf), and drug inspections. The training involves training the
naval personel in boarding tactics, small unit tactics, legalities, risks, use
of SMGs, assault carbines, assault shotguns, and pistols, and CQB, amongst
other things.
I sort of assume other navies follow suit... either that or Canada has what
seems to be a pretty good plan. These are not 'defence teams' as they are
constituted for many types of mission in an 'excursive' role where they depart
the vessel to board other vessels.
Now, equipment is an issue. Any ships locker will contain firearms (rifles,
possibly a SAW or two, and maybe some shotguns). The SMGs and other
specialized BP tools will only be brought aboard when the
ship expects to undertake boarding actions - customs duty, blockade,
interdiction or the like.
These are NOT marines, but they are very serious, very dangerous, well trained
boarding parties. And they are drawn, at need, from the ship staff. (Now, I'm
not sure the doctrine for combat boardings as I'm sure the ship wouldn't want
to spare key people if engaged actively... but I don't know).
<Otherwise, your ideas about boarding parties are interesting and perhaps
viable>.
Tom.
/************************************************
Boarding Actions for FT:FB
These rules are a joint effort by Jared Noble and Schoon, with ideas culled
from others on the list. They replace the boarding rules from More Thrust,
bringing them on line with FT:FB1.
Boarding Parties and Defense Teams
In More Thrust, ships were given a certain number of Boarding Parties for
free. This number was determined only on the MASS of the ship. One of the
elegant aspects of the Fleet Book construction system was the elimination, or
at least reduction, of "freebies" in the construction system, along with
better defined crew rules. Thus...
No ship carries Boarding Parties unless they are specifically purchased during
construction, although Defense Teams may be assembled from the general crew in
order to defend the ship from enemy invaders.
It was accurately pointed out on the FTML that it is contrary to current naval
practice for vessels to carry trained teams for boarding actions. It is not
unreasonable, in an age of increasingly long range warfare, that this trend
will continue. It was also observed that Full Thrust has a very low frequency
of actual boarding operations in most games. Thus eliminating the previously
free boarding parties has very little impact on play or ship design. However,
the ability to use regular crew as defenders preserves a defensive ability on
all but the smallest vessels.
Boarding Factors (BF) can consist of Defense Teams, Boarding Parties, or
Grunts.
Defense Teams (Naval Personnel): For every 2 surviving crew units aboard
(round down), a ship may muster 1 Boarding Factor of defenders for purposes of
resisting boarding actions. These teams are "free" in the sense that they are
drawn from the current crew, and so are available to all but the smallest
vessels. Because they are hastily assembled and not specifically equipped,
they may not be used in offensive boarding operations. For every casualty
taken, place checks by 2 crew units to indicate they may no longer be used as
Defense Teams.
Boarding Parties (Marines): Boarding Parties must be purchased and are
represented on the SSD as an anchor inside a circle. Each of these teams count
as 1 Boarding Factor in combat, and may be used in offensive operations. They
do not suffer casualties as crew units are eliminated, but are subject to
thresholds like any other system. Boarding Parties lost to threshold rolls may
by "repaired" by damage control, representing medical treatment, but those
lost in combat cannot be recovered.
Boarding Party - 1 MASS, POINT COST = 3
Though 1 MASS may seem high, Marines require a large amount of special
equipment, including recoilless weapons, power armor with thruster packs, and
other bulky items. They are specially trained and equipped for these actions.
Carried Troops (Grunts): Ground troops carried aboard troop ships may be
pressed into service to defend the vessel. Every 2 MASS of ground troops
carried yields 1 Boarding Factor, which may only be used for defensive
operations. Because most of the troops' weapons and equipment are stowed, and
that they lack the extensive training and specific equipment required for
boarding actions, they are not nearly as efficient as Marines.
Resolving Boarding Actions
These rules, while simple, provide a more flexible and "realistic" resolution
of boarding actions, while taking into account the new core systems rules from
the FT:FB.
Using the FT/MT system, any Boarding Factors (old Boarding Parties) that
were severely outnumbered could not possibly win, nor inflict any casualties.
Even a two vs. four situation was virtually hopeless for the defenders,
contrary to the example in MT.
Boarding actions take place after "Step 9: Ships Fire" in the sequence of
play. To be eligible for a boarding action, the ships in question must be
within 6" and have a difference in velocity no greater than one. If using the
Cinematic Movement System, the course may vary by no more than one clock face
than that of the target ship, or, if using the Vector Movement System, by no
more than 30
°
off that of the target vessel.
Each BF is assigned to either offensive or defensive status. Offensive BFs,
which must consist solely of Boarding Parties, are those that will assault the
enemy ship, and defensive BFs, which may be a combination of any type of BF,
will defend their own.
Any ship assaulted by enemy BFs must resolve a boarding action for the turn.
Both offensive and defensive players roll one die for each BF, and score it in
the same manner as a beam weapon, including re-rolls on a 6. The result
is the number of casualties inflicted on the opposing force. For example, if
two defensive BFs were assaulted by four offensive BFs, they would roll two
and four dice respectively. If the rolls were 2 and 5 for the defenders, and
1, 4, 3, and
6 (re-roll of 4), the casualties would be 1 and 4 respectively. The
defenders have died gloriously, but at least they took a "bad guy" down with
them.
If, after casualties have been removed, there are still BFs on both sides,
another round of combat will ensue on the following turn. A ship could
potentially be in contest for some time, with both players making an effort to
reinforce their side in the intervening turn.
The defending player has the option of giving up a core system instead of a
casualty. The effects of giving up the system are exactly the same as if it
has failed a threshold check, with the exception of the power core. The power
core will not explode (unless that is the assault team's objective), but
simply acts
as if it had been dumped upon a roll of 5-6 (FB pg. 5). For example, a
defender with two BFs takes two casualties from offensive forces. Confident
that he can get reinforcements from friendly ships next turn, he removes one
BF and gives up life support. The other player rolls one die (as if life
support had failed) and gets a two. Whatever happens, the defender had better
hope that the action is resolved within the next two turns.
The contested ship remains in the hands of the defenders and continues to move
and fire normally (subject to the effects of surrendered core systems) until
the defenders are defeated in the Boarding Resolution phase.
Note that with this system, a ship can drop off an assault force and then
thrust away to do other things. Likewise, a defender, who has any capacity to
do so, can limp closer to friendly forces in hopes of help.
Optional rules:
Attacking Systems (Raids) -
On the initial turn of boarding a ship, a boarding force may declare a special
effort to damage one specific system. Core systems are not valid targets. The
attacker then assigns a number of his BFs to the task. The boarding action is
resolved as normal, except the attacker may not roll for the BFs involved in
the raid. If the BF assigned to the raid survives, the target system must take
a threshold roll vs. 6. Each additional surviving BF that was assigned to the
raid lowers the threshold roll by 1.
Boarding Cutters -
Boarding cutters are an alternate means of getting BFs to the target ship.
They are based loosely on the shuttle rules from the B5:EFSB.
The Cutter moves in the same phase and in the same manner as fighters, with a
speed of 18 MU. It takes 2 damage points to destroy. The first point of damage
to the shuttle yields no effect, but the second point destroys the shuttle and
all aboard. It attacks as a single fighter if intercepted by fighters. If the
cutter ends its movement within 6" of an enemy ship and survives PDS fire, the
boarding parties may attack. Cutters have an endurance of 2 and may carry 2
BFs (BPs only).
Boarding Cutter 2 MASS (requires 3 MASS hanger), POINT COST = 6
Prize Crews -
Once a ship is taken, a prize crew must be transferred if it is to be taken as
a spoil of war. Prize crews consists of a number of crew units equal to
1/5
(rounding up) of the original crew value for the ship. These crew maintain the
ability to act as Damage Control Parties for establishing control and
repairing the ship. Prize crews may come from any vessel of the victor's
fleet. No ship
may be reduced to less than 1/5 its original crew rating. This is the
minimum
crew required to maintain standard ship-board operations.
With a prize crew in place, the ship is now under limited control of its new
owners. Most ship systems will be offline and locked with security measures,
and control must be reestablished. To establish control, a successful damage
control roll must be made by one of the new crew acting as a DCP. This roll
does not actually repair damage, but simply restores control of the systems.
Each category listed below must be repaired individually.
Manuever: the ship may immediately maneuver at 1/2 current thrust
rating. Reactivation restores current maximum thrust.
FTL: FTL is offline. Reactivation allows normal use.
Defensive systems: initially offline, reactivation permits use of screens and
PDS, but not ADFC, which requires a refit to conform to another fleet's
control protocol.
Offensive weapons: Offensive systems are generally held under much tighter
security than other ship systems, and therefore cannot be reactivated during
the course of a game. This requires the more extensive resources available at
a shipyard or other major fleet center.
Life support systems require no reactivation roll.
Can some one repost the orginal message? Thanks
-Stephen
> Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> It was accurately pointed out on the FTML that it is contrary to
> Um. I beg to differ. I know of several Canadian ships that have a
OK, amend to read "contrary to current naval to carry trained and equipped
boarding teams on _every_ vessel." Some may, many (or most) don't.
> I sort of assume other navies follow suit... either that or Canada
Well, Phil Pournelle pointed out in October or November of last year that the
US Navy does not specifically carry troops for this purpose. Not having seen
any counter arguments to his statements then, that's what I used. His
additional comment at the time, with which I agree, is (paraphrased) "If you
want them, buy em and pay the space". Certainly it may be viable to design
specialty boarding ships, but a few teams on all your cruisers is another
possibility...YMMV Below is the factor that may most likely distinguish future
practice from current:
> Now, equipment is an issue. Any ships locker will contain firearms
Yes, Equipment is probably the larger factor, and the equipment for a team of
boarders that have to jump across vacuum in a potentially hostile enviroment
to breach a hull and engage in combat in a definately hostile environment
(both vacuum and active defenders fire) will be much more extensive. Giving
your crew members a standard duty EVA suit and a pulse rifle, even if they are
CQB trained (what's the B for specifically?) is not the same as proper
equipment for the
task...
> These are NOT marines, but they are very serious, very dangerous,
I can certainly accept that. I have no doubt they are effective fighters, and
effective in their element. I contend that their element is within their ship,
where they are not hampered by their lack of specialized boarding equipment
(perhaps PA with heavy duty EVA maneuvering systems to power them at high
speed between vessels, as well as Hull breaching equipment, etc.)
Marines Boarding Parties are more intensively trained, but just as important,
and distinguishing in the rules we set up, is the fact they are properly
prepared for the particular job at hand.
> <Otherwise, your ideas about boarding parties are interesting and
Hopefully thought-provoking at least...
> Jared E Noble wrote:
> vacuum and active defenders fire) will be much more extensive. Giving
> members a standard duty EVA suit and a pulse rifle, even if they are
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Um. I beg to differ. I know of several Canadian ships that have a
RAN has the same deal. Add Rapelling. (Rapelling??? Well, if you're
going to inspect every container on a Ro-Ro ship, be prepared to have to
do a lot of it, they're stacked up to 6 high with no other access), Foreign
Languages ( Bahasi Indonesian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Thai), etc etc.
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> >Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
how about this. your current rules allow for organic defence-only units,
taking no extra mass, marines, which take up mass dur to the hefty equipment,
and footsloggers in spaace, which come under the usual troop
rules. i agree that 2 crew -> 1 defence factor, but would up marines to
being worth two factors in attack, or being able to attack and defend in the
same turn.
then, add another possibility: boarding parties. these are like defence teams,
but with more training and equipment. because they are part of the crew, they
take up no mass, just like DCPs. so, if you want to do lightweight boarding,
or are worried about being boarded, pack in some BPs. if you are serious about
boarding all sorts of things, take marines.
i am assuming DCPs are still massless as they were in MT; i have a horrible
feeling that they aren't, and jared's marines are modelled on them. if so,
ignore this post.
Tom
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> >Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> how about this. your current rules allow for organic defence-only
That's a pretty good summation.
> but would up marines to
That's an interesting idea, but if 'boarding parties' are still part of the
crew (which comes free and takes no dedicated mass) then what is the extra
cost incurred in making some of them boarding parties? It seems to me that in
order to add an ability that you would not otherwise have, you should have to
pay for it somehow. Do you want to simply make the crew more expensive to
reflect this ability? That may work, but I still think that some MASS will be
involved -
call it a gut feeling.
Also, when I referred to the BPs as Marines, I meant specially trained and
equipped CQB teams with the interface equipment to cross the space between
ships and breach during hostile actions. Whether Marine or Naval makes no big
difference to me.
So help fill in the holes in understanding your proposal-
Crew: No mass, no cost, and 1/2 for defense only.
BPs (yours): Mass?, Cost?, 1 for defense or?offense? Marines (yours): Mass 1,
Cost 3, 2 for defense or offense.
> i am assuming DCPs are still massless as they were in MT; i have a
Well, the understanding I have, (and my intention) is that you have inherent
DCPs (one per crew unit), but that you can still purchase more (as in MT). The
Boarding parties were modeled on these 'extra' DCPs. I cannot see any warship
that does not have Damage control teams as an integral part of the crew.
I do
not envision _every_ warship in the future carrying specialized boarding
parties, though. Especially not with the relatively small crew sizes we see in
the FB. But they can all pick up a gun and help fight off the invaders.
Just a point of clarification: If you have 2 ships dock "peacefully" (granted
no rules for that yet), I can imagine that even your naval 'defense teams'
could
cross to the other ship and then participate in action if necessary -
this IMO, is how typical customs inspections might occur. When I refer to
'Boarding Parties' per se, I mean the guys that can pull on the specialty PA,
fire off thier boosters to cross the space inbetween the ships, set thier hull
breaching
explosives, enter and engage in CQB with the defenders. This is _not_
the same as a typical customs inspection. They are 'above and beyond'.
> Tom
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Tom wrote:
points, just like extra DCPs. sorry, i wasn't being clear here.
> It seems to me that in order
well, i can't argue with gut feeling! just bear in mind that extra DCPs
-
which are really just extra training and equipment - do not take up
mass. i would argue that boarding parties are also just extra training and
equipment.
> Also, when I referred to the BPs as Marines, I meant specially trained
understood; i wasn't happy with not having a no-mass boarding option.
without it, i have to design ships specifically with boarding in mind. with
it, i can just stump up the extra points and buy some boarding parties for
some ships on some missions, just as i would extra DCPs.
> So help fill in the holes in understanding your proposal-
rephrase:
Defence Parties: Mass 0, Cost 0, number = crew / 2, 1 for defence
> BPs (yours): Mass ?, Cost ?, 1 for defense or ?offense?
Mass 0, Cost <same as DCPs? or 3 pts?>, 1 for defence or offence
> Marines (yours): Mass 1, Cost 3, 2 for defense or offense.
> >i am assuming DCPs are still massless as they were in MT; i have a
right, i was thinking of the extra DCPs. i'd forgotten the intrinsics.
> The
exactly.
> I cannot see any warship
i agree completely - this is just what i was thinking. all ships get
built-in DCPs, and can have extras. no ships get built-in BPs, but all
can buy extras.
of course, if you're playing Klingons or some such, perhaps your ships do
get built-in BPs.
> Just a point of clarification: If you have 2 ships dock "peacefully"
(granted
> no rules for that yet), I can imagine that even your naval 'defense
i can believe that. in these cases, unarmed crew can also cross over.
> When I refer to 'Boarding
ahh, good point. i imagine this type of boarding as being carried out by small
craft, such as shuttles, carrying boarding teams. thus, my proposed BPs can do
it, even though marines can do it much better. the DPs can't, because they
lack the training.
Tom
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > Also, when I referred to the BPs as Marines, I meant specially
Makes standard designs still viable for boarding parties which is a good
thing.
> > I cannot see any warship
Or, contrariwise, there is a logic that suggests that, based on the few ships
out there and the massive area of space they must control, patrol, and govern,
most ships crews would have BP training and some basic equipment (if they
can't board by PA and breaching charges, at least they can board by shuttle
and have enough equipment to be credible). If your nearest backup is LY away,
and if you have to tackle ANY mission conceivable (seems likely to me given
the scope of the FT universe), then you have a need to have a part of each
crew trained in boarding actions.
> of course, if you're playing Klingons or some such, perhaps your ships
Or Pirates!
> > When I refer to 'Boarding
So, if we have DPs, BPs, and MBPs (Marine Boarding Parties), then you have a
range of capability:
1) The Defense Party can only board another ship by sealed means -
sealed catwalk used after dock, or shuttle or some such. No hull breaching.
They are 'armed crew' who hopefully have at least an idea of where to point
the sharp end of the laser carbine. But they do not have grenades, body
armour, or heavier support weapons, nor the specialized training nor
penetration aids like things to deal with computers and locks. 2) The Boarding
Party can board another ship by sealed or unsealed
means - but in this case we're only talking about vacc suits. A short
walk across space to enter is fine, but no hull breaching assaults. They are
'armed crew' also, but they are trained and equipped for the job. They know
how to use most small arms, and have a good mix of these and light support
weapons. They may have grenades. They will
probably know rappelling (a point for our RAN informer - the hold on
an FT freighter probably has a lot in common with that on a supertanker),
languages, legal things about boarding actions, engineering, and the like.
They may well have systems to compromise electronics or locking mechanisms.
They may well have good body armour (unpowered) (perhaps as part of the vacc
suit).
3) The Marine Boarding Party - These are your classic Marine Assault
Troops - probably the same type of laddies and lasses that would do
orbital assaults in dropcaps. They'll be PA'd to the max, with muscle amps,
targeting, comms, and jamming gear. They'll have systems that help them track
their location vs diagrams of the ship. They'll have gear to bollix enemy ship
computers, compromise security systems, and open doors. They'll have
explosives and the like for hull and hatch
breaching. They'll be armed six ways from sunday - hand grenades,
GLs, Plasma Guns, Rapid Fire Flechette Guns, Vomit and Nerve gases (great
aboard ship!), Close Combat gear. These guys can assault a hostile ship (maybe
even one with a little bit of manouvre left in it
- enough to frustrate a docking attempt) from space using either a
trip partway in assault shuttles then an EVA or a longer EVA from ship to
ship. They can penetrate outer hull locks, breach the hull, damage exterior
systems,etc. They are not only trained in things like protecting their Navy
customs inspectors or technical experts, but in
sabotage, counter-boarding actions (for defending their own ships or
for knowing how a boarded enemy will respond) and in knowing what systems must
be disabled quickly to bring an enemy ship under control (core systems!).
Nice work so far:)
/************************************************
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
[snip]
> >> >i am assuming DCPs are still massless as they were in MT; i have a
I think we need a ruling on this. As far as I can tell, it's not possible to
buy "extra" DCPs using the Fleet Book construction rule. For one, there's no
Mass/Point cost entry in the cost table . . .
Jon?
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Tom wrote:
OK, I feel silly now. I haven't been keeping track of things, and completely
spaced off the fact that extra DCP's in MT were massless additions! I
remembered you could add them, and that they gained threshold icons, but
thought they took mass. <sigh>
> It seems to me that in order
> well, i can't argue with gut feeling! just bear in mind that extra DCPs
See above...
> So help fill in the holes in understanding your proposal-
> rephrase:
Extra DCPs are 10 pts each - What about 6 for BPs? limited to the number
of Defense teams, or crew units at most.
> Marines (yours): Mass 1, Cost 3, 2 for defense or offense.
The trouble I have with the combat factor of 2 is that once you got your
boarding units (offensive or defensive) into combat, each unit would be
cleanly represented by one die. If that means the defense team is 8 guys while
the marine team is just 4, so be it, I just wanted a unit (or 'Boarding
Factor') to behave identically once combat begins. Otherwise you have to pay
more attention to allocating casualties among your units between combat rounds
> >i am assuming DCPs are still massless as they were in MT; i have a
> right, i was thinking of the extra DCPs. i'd forgotten the intrinsics.
You were correct - extra DCPs are still massless (Jon hasn't said
otherwise that I have seen)
> I cannot see any warship
> i agree completely - this is just what i was thinking. all ships get
> of course, if you're playing Klingons or some such, perhaps your ships
hmmm...Rather than buying extra no-mass boarding parties, what about a
cost to
convert your crew-based defense factors into boarding parties to cover
these situations? This way you could spend points to supplement the ability of
your
crew-mustered forces, but if you want to expand beyond what your crew
muster can support you then need to dedicate the extra mass for more forces
(be they naval or marine specialists.) so spend an extra 6 pts per crew unit
and your defense teams are now Boarding parties.
> When I refer to 'Boarding
> ahh, good point. i imagine this type of boarding as being carried out
Small craft are also reasonable - The reason Schoon and I tried hashing
out the details for a boarding cutter. But it was also intended to enable the
'projection' of boarding forces - enabling boarding actions while the
action is still hot, rather than relying on your opponent already being
crippled
swiss-cheese. Since these necessitate mass, (2, so 3 in a standard
fighter
bay), we figured on keeping the powered-armor with maneuvering jet idea
for standard boarding actions (within 6", course within 1, speed within 1)
> I think we need a ruling on this. As far as I can tell, it's
I agree, they are now firmly based on crew units which are in turn based on
ship mass, you can't currently buy them (DCPs).
> I think we need a ruling on this. As far as I can tell, it's
For
> one, there's no Mass/Point cost entry in the cost table . . .
So you're not going to buy Armor either, right? (g)
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> >On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
aah. suddenly, everything is clear.
> >> It seems to me that in order
right. well, if you revise your marine parties to be DCP-like, i'll drop
my boarding party amendment.
> >> So help fill in the holes in understanding your proposal-
sounds about right. or use your conversion idea later - rather than
one-job specialist marines, we're looking at RCN-style boarders or
RN-style marines, where the boarding crew has ordinary naval stations
too.
thus, defence parties can be upgraded to boarding / marine parties. note
that this kind of marine is great for ship-ship work, but not much cop
for landings. no vehicles or owt.
> >> Marines (yours): Mass 1, Cost 3, 2 for defense or offense.
hmm, good point. well, if the uncrossing of wires here has removed the need
for BPs, the problem goes away.
> >> I cannot see any warship
this sounds like a great idea. so, how about:
defence party - one per crew factor - roll 1 die in defence only
boarding party - upgrade from defence party for 5 pts - roll 1 die at +1
in attack or defence
plus rules for ground troops fighting.
> This way you could spend points to supplement the ability of your
right. and the extra-mass marines could essentially be handled as
carried
troops (fresh, not deep-frozen), with a special dispensation that allows
them to fight effectively on ship. maybe this dispensation should cost extra
points. maybe this is getting a bit too much.
> so spend an extra 6 pts per crew unit and your defense
essentially, yes. i thought 5, as you're losing a defence party, but yes.
> >> When I refer to 'Boarding
fair enough. i always picture starships as carrying a few small auxiliary
craft, of the type which could be used for boarding, anyway, although i
suppose the Tuffleyverse ships don't have these.
Tom
> I think we need a ruling on this. As far as I can tell, it's not
Yet... I see no reason why not.
In a message dated 99-02-10 05:55:28 EST, you write:
<< Yet... I see no reason why not.
Schoon >> As I recall it says that any thing that is not "over writen" in FB
it works as if FT.
-Stephen