[FT] WotW 2 and General EMP

G'day guys,

> Noam wrote:

I'm obviously in a difficult mood this week as I just don't see the
distinction, but ignore me I'll agree to disagree on this one.

> Most people can, after a few games,

I agree, but I still think that a simple designation system and rolling a few
dice will be MUCH quicker;)

> As for the virtual damage system, that

I'd thought of that scenario and didn't really mind it as all "cause threshold
checks to all" weapons are going to suffer this problem unless

you ban simultaneous EMP and standard strikes (bit hard to PSB for
K-guns I
would've thought). Besides if the Von Teg wants to hurt itself its fine with
me there's no guarantee I'm ever going to hit it in the future anyway;)

George suggested:
> How about making up chits or cards or something.

Personally George I like this idea, but given the heat that chit pulling in DS
seems to cause in some quarters I can't see it being a universally accepted
option for FT.

Schoon suggested:
> least MASS to largest MASS

While this is probably OK for FB ships with the "info sheet" already there, I
don't like the idea I'd have to carry around an extra info sheet of masses so
my atrocious memory won't let me down mid game and how do I decide between 2
systems in the same category with the same mass? To tell the truth I probably
wouldn't actually care which order people rolled, but I know a few gamers that
would sit down and work out exactly which order

they should roll to minimize the effects, I'd really not have to deal with the
frustration! Its one of the beauties of FT that there is so little in game
"fiddling" that can occur.

The Bells commented:
> Every other EMP weapon only causes

I don't know enough engineering to disagree with you on that one;)

> So EMP afflicted ships roll for group 3

Nope that's where you lost me, I'd be happy to restrict EMP effects to your
"group 3" stuff, but I'd really rather skip bookkeeping and just say that if
they're knocked out then they must be fixed as normal.

Then Donogh suggested:
> Attacker chooses one system,

Noam probably won't go for this, but of all the compromises called for today I
like it the most. It captures Noam (and others) "defender chooses" preference
as well as giving the firer some chance of knocking out the thing they really
wanted to get rid of in the first place.

I'll shut up now... if you're lucky;)

Cheers

Beth

> Schoon suggested:

Actually, I don't really care which way it goes, as long as it's simple and
well defined.

G'day,

> Actually, I don't really care which way it

That's what I'm after too - believe it or not given my recent
argumentative tone;)

Cheers

Beth

> >Actually, I don't really care which way it

Beth said
> That's what I'm after too - believe it or not given my recent

Roll 1 die:  On 1-3, no effect;  4-5, all systems down for 1 turn; 6,