Hello All,
I've been re-reading the revised MT missiles that were posted on the
list some time ago (27th Sept 2001), and I have a couple of questions (and a
proposal).
The description states that these missiles move like fighters, but are moved
before fighters, but when are they launched?
a) At the beginning of Phase 3) Move Fighter Groups,
or..
b) During Phase 4) Launch ordnance (which would mean that their _first_
turn of movement is _after_ fighter primary move.
Secondly, could you clarify: the description of the Misericorde missile seems
to imply that the missiles need to burn a point of endurance to
actually attack a target (any target) - is this true? It also states
that missiles with more than 1 endurance can burn a point of endurance
to choose their target - presumably this is in addition to the point
needed to make an attack?
Finally the proposal:
The revised rules covered MT missiles, and MT EMP missiles, but not MT Needle
Missiles:
My proposal: MT Needle Missiles have 3 points of endurance, and do 1d6-1
points of damage (half penetrating, - like other missiles).
To make a needle attack, a Needle Missile must burn a point of endurance to
select its target (see above). If it rolls a 6 on its damage dice (doing 5
points of damage), it has hit & destroyed the target system.
If a Needle Missile burns two points of endurance selecting its target
(leaving 1 to attack with), it is more accurate, destroying its target
system on a damage roll of 5+.
Another Proposal:
Name MT missiles 'Medium Tactical' missiles, thus keeping the 'MT'
abbreviation (and allowing for the possibility of 'heavy missiles'
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> I've been re-reading the revised MT missiles that were posted on the
I wasn't playing FT at that time, so I missed those. Can someone recap? Where
would I go in the archives for this info? I really like MTM's, and am
interested in any info on them.
> Secondly, could you clarify: the description of the Misericorde missile
Were these mentioend in the aforementioned thread?
*SNIP*
> Another Proposal:
Works for me.
3B^2
In message <F20mspH2q6DqaJY4kJS00011db9@hotmail.com>
> "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
In the list archive - try Thursday, 27th Sept. 2001, thread title
"WDA-FT3" or some such permutation. Author "Alan and Carmel Brain" for
the last (AFAIK) mention.
> >Secondly, could you clarify: the description of the Misericorde
Yes - short range (ie. not much endurance), high damage.
> *SNIP*
Well, I though that we've been calling them 'MT' missiles for so long
that it'd probably stuck :-)
From: "Charles Taylor" <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
> The description states that these missiles move like fighters, but are
Should definitely be before fighter primary move.
> Secondly, could you clarify: the description of the Misericorde
Not quite: They must expend a point of endurance to move when launched. You
basically put them up to 18" away from the launcher, just as you
From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> I wasn't playing FT at that time, so I missed those. Can someone
-- The following may not be the one in the archives, it's taken from
the playtest list. (NB This does NOT make it official, it's just one proposal
and the FT3 MTM may be completely different)
Here's my preferred variant.
MT missiles cost 2 mass, 6 pts as individual launchers. They cost 1 mass, 3
pts if fired from an SML.
They come in 4 varieties, which must be specified before the game a la Phalon
Pulsar.
Long Lance - 5 Endurance 1D6 warhead
Normal - 3 Endurance, 2D6 warhead
Misericorde - 1 Endurance, 3D6 warhead
EMP - 1 Endurance, EMP warhead.
Each MTM moves like a fighter, before fighters do, with speed 18". After ship
movement, but before fighter secondary movement, they may burn an extra
endurance (if they have it) to move another 6". They home in on the closest
target within 6", like SMs do. They are fired at as if they are a SM with 1
missile in it.
EMP Warhead - does 1pt always, and a threshold on a 2+, but subtract
screens from
die roll, so will do a threshold on a target with 2 screens on a 4+. Add
thresholds from
EMP missiles together in the usual way - so 3 thresholds is one at 4+,
not 3
at 6+, and
if the target's damaged so the next threshold is 5+ not 6+, it would be
one
at 3+.
[quoted original message omitted]
From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
> > so can't make a secondary move. After ships have moved, It will
Yes.
Of course, if they have an extra point of endurance, they can move 6" so the
closest enemy within 6" is whatever they want it to be. But they lose range if
they do this. And the EMP and Misericorde versions can't do it at all, they
don't have the endurance to spare.
You end up with a weapon that either a) has a really long range, but is just
as random at picking targets as an SM or
b) has a medium range, comparable to an SM-ER, but can pick its target,
costs less in mass and points, does a tadge more damage, but OTOH is far
easier to shoot down, marginally easier to dodge, is vastly more vulnerable to
fighters.
At least, that's the Standard. The Long Lance version can be launched from
a really long distance away - 72" or 90" if you don't mind the lack of
terminal
accuracy. But does a piddly 1D6 damage. Very good for long-range
sniping, also good for taking out escorts. The Misericorde is mainly to finish
off cripples that can neither manouver nor have much PDS, but still have bulk
hull. The EMP version is most useful against ships of Komorov or Jeanne D'Arc
size,
Alan and Carmel Brain schrieb:
> The EMP version is most useful against ships of Komorov
As the consensus seems to be that Superships are somewhat
underpriced/too powerful in FT, it isn't really a bad thing to have a
weapon that is especially damaging to them.
Greetings
Has this had any success? It would seem too vulnerable. If it still uses the
FB rules for anti-missile fire, one missile dies very quickly. Also,
moving it to after fighter movement allows every fighter group in range to
pick it off. Even if it moves in secondary movement, fighters get secondary
movement to pick it off. Part of the intention of fighter secondary movement
was to be able to pick up missiles. With the change, they do not need to spend
the endurance to do so. Also, in MT the missiles were 1.5x as fast as fighters
(except fast fighters), in this version they are only 0.75x as fast as
fighters.
Here is the version I like: 1) Moves upto 36" (fighter style movement, but
limited rotation). 1a) In vector give it a thrust of 12, 1 rotation (to any
facing), and no pushes. It starts on the course and with the velocity of the
ship firing it. It moves like a ship, but movement is not written in advance.
Record only end velocity and heading for the MT missile. 2) Allowed upto a 2pt
rotation before it moves in each launch ordinance phase (fractional rotations
allowed), but not during movement. 2a) In vector ignore this restriction. 3)
Limited life of 6 game turns.
4) Launched/moves in the Launch Ordanence phase.
5) Only killed by PDS/Fighter Fire on a roll of 6+. Each missile must be
targeted seperatly by PDS/Fighter Groups trying to shoot them down.
6) Damage as per MT. Range is 6" (optional 3 or 4" in vector). 7) Each MT
missile that causes damage is treated as a PDS attack against all other MT
missiles that are attacking the same ship this turn due to fratricide. (This
is to reduce swarm attacks with MT missiles.) 8) MT Missiles always are fired
out of the Forward arc.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
Cygnus X1.info
http://www.cygnusx1.info/
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
Quite a long time.
> 7) Each MT missile that causes damage is treated as a PDS attack
doesn't make sense that MTM suffer this but SMR don't. And I'd say you're
somewhat less likely to overload defenses with MTM than with
SMR--defender only has to get one kill/salvo instead of up to six.
> 8) MT Missiles always are fired out of the Forward arc.
Unneccesary restriction. I can see "must specify firing arcs when purchased"
and limiting it to 120 or 180 degrees, but there's no reason it has to be F
arc only, is there?
[quoted original message omitted]
> Brian Bell wrote:
> >From: Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
"Should"? Hardly. Fighter endurance and missile endurance are two quite
different things:
Fighters had endurance for 3 *attacks*, but an effectively unlimited number of
*turns*. Missiles had endurance for 3 *turns*, but can never make more
than 1 *attack* (since they self-destruct when they attack).
> >7) Each MT missile that causes damage is treated as a PDS attack
You can fire all SMRs at once too.
> 2. Each _missile_ is targeted by PDS seperatly.
But you get on average 3.5 SMR missiles for the same Mass as 2 MTMs, which
makes the SMR harder for the PDS to stop.
This fratricide proposal completely guts MTMs.
Regards,
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> I've been re-reading the revised MT missiles that were posted on the
b). Missiles are ordnance. Yes, this means that fighters have to burn
endurance to intercept MTMs which launch this turn unless the missiles are
launched to within 6mu of the fighters; that's exactly the same as against
Salvo Missiles.
> Finally the proposal:
That's correct, and it is deliberate. Unless you can pack in a
full-sized
FCS into the missile in addition to its drive and warhead, the missile doesn't
have good enough sensors to pick out a specific target system.
Later,
> [6 turns is Quite a long time.]
Since
> fighters were extended, missiles should be also.
They are different beasts. MT missiles with restricted turn abilities and 6
turn endurance will be trying to come around for half the game if they miss
the first time.
> [Bri] You are _more_ likely to be overwhelmed by MTM. This is due to:
That is why I prefer the "kill MT missile on a 4-6" for PDS. It is
simpler and IMO more logically consistent with SMs than fratricide.
I generally like Alan's set of missile rules with two exceptions. They don't
belong in racks (different beasts), and I'm not sure if the EMP mechanic works
yet. Also I think there must have been a typo in the
recent post of them -stating the EMP roll was 2+, which would cripple
any ship, any time.
> Has this had any success? It would seem too vulnerable.
Yes, and yes, it's very vulnerable to fighters. Deliberately so.
It's designed so that it has sufficient differentiation from SMs to be
worthwhile including in the game as a separate system. In terms of
vulnerability, tactics required, and method of usage it's quite different,
though the rules mechanics are a hybrid of fighter and SM.
It's *not* designed to be universally as effective as other, existing weapons.
More effective *in the right circumstances*, but significantly less effective
in others. Basically, its main advantage is to complicate the life of the
defender,
From: <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> >The description states that these missiles move like fighters, but
It's only on succeeding turns that fighters move after them. That was the
In message <00ac01c1cbf9$491e43e0$3ff2fea9@webone.com.au>
> "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Ah! that clears it up, I think, thanks! I'm guessing the standard 18mu range
is partially to allow for fighter interception of missiles. I assume fighters
intercept MT missiles just like Salvo Missiles?
In message <F7D819FB-378A-11D6-9E41-000393071770@jhuapl.edu>
> Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> > [Bri] You are _more_ likely to be overwhelmed by MTM. This is due
One question - how about shooting at MTMs with Scatterguns or
Interceptor pods? ATM it looks like the use of 1 scattergun or interceptor pod
vs. 1 MTM is an automatic kill (each kills 1d6 missiles
- and is being fired at 1 missile) - which is probably about right (the
use of 1 entire scattergun, or 1 biomass, to stop 1 missile).
> I generally like Alan's set of missile rules with two exceptions. They
> don't belong in racks (different beasts ), and I'm not sure if the EMP
> mechanic works yet. Also I think there must have been a typo in the
I'm not sure what you mean about racks, do you mean you disagree with putting
MTMs in the same magazine as Salvo Missiles, and launching them
from a SML (which should probably be re-named the 'Standard Missile
Launcher' or 'Versatile Missile Launcher' if that is the case :-) )?
If I'm reading the write-up correctly (and it was 2+ in the version in
the archives) the initial roll is to see if the EMP missile affects the
target at all, if it does, the target _then_ makes a threshold check at
its current level. Thus an unscreened target has a 5 in 6 chance of needing to
make a threshold check, while a target with level 2 screens only has a 50%
chance of needing to make threshold checks. So against an undamaged,
unscreened ship, it knocks out just under 14%
of its systems, on average - if only 1 EMP missile hits.
In message <E83E983C3EC9DD45A40B24C4BA3A60756AEA16@col1smx01.USE.AD.DLA.MIL>
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
Since
> fighters were extended, missiles should be also.
Umm... not really... MT Missiles had a _lifespan_ of 3 turns, after
which they were removed from play. MT Fighters had 3 Combat Endurance, that
was spent on making attacks only. The concept of 'Secondary Movement' was
introduced in Fleet Book 1, so fighters were given extra CEF to use for this
purpose.
Ok, to basics, the argument is "should missiles be faster than fighters?" I
personally cannot decide, but my own tendency would be to give missiles a
standard speed of 24mu, the same as fighters. (no real reason other than
simplicity).
> >7) Each MT missile that causes damage is treated as a PDS attack
Only if using the rack-mounted version :-)
> 2. Each _missile_ is targeted by PDS seperatly.
Thus
> something needs to be done to reduce the number of effective missiles
In MT, MT missiles were only killed by PDAFs/ADAFs (or C-batteries) on
rolls of 6, the updated MTMs are killed by PDS on rolls of 4+, and
B-1s/K-1s on rolls of 5+ (and I've just asked about scatterguns and
interceptor pods), making PDS about 3x as effective against them.
> >8) MT Missiles always are fired out of the Forward arc.
I'd make it 180 degrees, like SML/Rs (again, largely for simplicity).
From: "Charles Taylor" <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
> I assume fighters intercept MT missiles just like Salvo Missiles?
Exactly. You can treat an MTM like a salvo missile that's rolled a 1 for
number of missiles. They automatically get zapped by a single KV scattergun,
etc. This means that a reasonable tactic is to send in 4 MTMs followed by 2
SMs, rather than a single wave of 4 SMs, if the target has 4
[quoted original message omitted]
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> I assume fighters intercept MT missiles just like Salvo Missiles?
Yep. As usual, each MT missile counts as 1 salvo.
> One question - how about shooting at MTMs with Scatterguns or
Correct. Unless, of course, you're somehow able to roll less than 1 on a
D6 - but not even Indy or Beth can do that! :-)
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
[...]
> >One question - how about shooting at MTMs with Scatterguns or
> Dances With Rocks wrote:
Have you seen the film "God of Gamblers" with Chow Yun Fat of "Crouching
Tiger..." fame? Near the start CYF has to roll less than a 2 on 2d6 to win a
bet... and he does. A peculiar little film, like James Bond meets Rain Man.
G'day,
> Was that a challenge statement?
So are we great minds or fools?;)
In message <5.1.0.14.1.20020316185301.02ac4030@d1o4.telia.com>
> Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
In message <5.1.0.14.1.20020314212349.00a7c580@d1o4.telia.com>
> Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> >Finally the proposal:
> doesn't have good enough sensors to pick out a specific target system.
Thinking about it - a number of options:
1) yes you _can_ fit a fully-functional (abet specialised) FireCon into
a missile :-) I call this the high-tech option, and it should probably
be reserved for high-tech aliens.
2) The MT Needle Missile is guided to the target by the launching ship
(we won't go into details how) - dedicate 1 FireCon to the use of the
missile until it has hit its target or been destroyed (possibly 'tie up' the
FCS for any turn in which the missile is active).
3) Development of 2), target designators (TDS) - Needle missile can only
destroy a target system if some vessel with an active TDS (and firecon) is has
the target ship in range & in arc. Also, TDS fighters?
Someone needs to determine TDS range & MASS/points cost.
4) Disallow Needle Missiles :-)
Ok, 4) is easiest :-)
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > Unless you can pack in a full-sized
> Thinking about it - a number of options:
Least attractive option it would seem.
> 2) The MT Needle Missile is guided to the target by the launching ship
This one works for me, but I await it's deflation at SOMEONE'S hands.
;-)
> 3) Development of 2), target designators (TDS) - Needle missile can
Work work work.....
> 4) Disallow Needle Missiles :-)
But least fun. ;-)
3B^2