> Mike Miserendino wrote:
> Simon Campbell-Smith wrote:
> estimate yet of course as to when they will be published.
> Any truth to this Mike Elliot? Is an FT 3rd revision in testing?
No. AN FT 3rd revision is not in playtesting at the moment.
> Rather nice were the cast race badges well cool, a must for any really
> avid (sad) FT player/fan like myself.
> Yeah, they look sharp. We used these at GenCon when running FT games.
> Jon brought a sample batch with him for each fleet.
Even I haven't seen these yet - hopefully at SELWG in October.
Date sent: 23-SEP-1996 15:51:12
> It would appear that FT 3 is about to begin play testing. There was
> Any truth to this Mike Elliot? Is an FT 3rd revision in testing?
> No. AN FT 3rd revision is not in playtesting at the moment.
Good. It's not that I don't like the idea, it's just I think FT is pretty much
perfect in it's current form. The only changes I can see are moving some of
the fighter rules from MT into FT, and adding Realistic Movement (with the
addition of limited rotation) as an optional rule. (Plus clearing up a few
questionable parts such as Sub Packs, and beefing up Mines).
All in all, it would be a consolidation of FT2 rather than FT3.
Anyway, I'm happy with things as they stand as far as FT goes.
> Rather nice were the cast race badges well cool, a must for any
> Yeah, they look sharp. We used these at GenCon when running FT games.
> Jon brought a sample batch with him for each fleet.
> Even I haven't seen these yet - hopefully at SELWG in October.
The prototypes were at Ragnacon. (I'd rather have embroydered shoulder
patches though, not thant anyone makes them or anything. 8-) )
I got me gen straight from the GZG stand at Reading. Looks like I was fed some
miss infromation maybe?
Simon CS
----------
From: FTGZG-L[SMTP:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk]
Sent: 23 September 1996 16:31
To: Non Receipt Notification Requested
Subject: FT3?
Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
Content-Identifier: 401013230996
> Mike Miserendino wrote:
> Simon Campbell-Smith wrote:
> Any truth to this Mike Elliot? Is an FT 3rd revision in testing?
No. AN FT 3rd revision is not in playtesting at the moment.
> Rather nice were the cast race badges well cool, a must for any really
> Yeah, they look sharp. We used these at GenCon when running FT games.
Even I haven't seen these yet - hopefully at SELWG in October.
Mike Elliott, GZG
> Good. It's not that I don't like the idea, it's just I think FT is
You're right. A better idea for FT would be a third edition of Full Thrust and
a second edition of More Thrust that clears up a lot of the explanations and
house rules interpretation that we discuss on the mailing list.
For example, submunition packs, cloaking rules, pulse torpedoes, sensor rules,
and others.
House rules that my group discussed over the weekend included:
- Submunition packs can be used against fighters and missiles.
- Interceptors can attack enemy missiles.
- Port and starboard arc mounted missiles.
- 'Dormant' missiles that can be dropped at zero velocity, remain
inactive a minimum of one turn, and then may activate and engage a target.
(Talk about beefy minefields...)
- Improved pulse torpedoes
2+ 0-6"
3+ 6-12"
4+ 12-18"
5+ 18-24"
6 24-30"
FT3 could provide a lot of great ideas for running campaigns and
in-system
manuevering prior to the tabletop battle.
> At 05:14 PM 9/23/96 +0000, you wrote:
> House rules that my group discussed over the weekend included:
How would you implement this? Would you simply allow it with no further
changes or would you make submunitions packs cost more for this
extra ability or would you implement specialized "anti-fighter" sub
packs?
> FT3 could provide a lot of great ideas for running campaigns and
More campaign rules would be of great help. Wasn't there supposed to be a
dedicated FT Campaign book coming out?
> Jon Davis
James
> >House rules that my group discussed over the weekend included:
It would expand the role of submunition packs to allow them to engage fighters
within the single arc of fire for the pack. They still would be marked as
expended once used, but it adds a beefy point defense capability. The same
dice vs range table could be used.
In a similar fashion, you could use sub packs against missiles. Same number of
dice vs range. 6 to kill as for all hits against missiles.
I still think it's more advantageous to use sub packs against capital ships
and heavily shielded cruisers but these rules would allow for fleet point
defense capabilities.
Of course, the biggest thing in any Full Thrust game is your ships' velocity
relative to fighters and missiles. If your capital ships can safely go faster
than the fighters and missiles, and you use the optional rule where fighters
move after orders and before ships move, then a one-point turn can fool
the fighters and make them nearly useless.
I'd say that this is one of the things distinguishing many 'standard' FT
games. If your velocities are all under 15, fighters will do impressive
amounts of damage. If your velocities are over 15, fighters often won't be in
range.
I don't see a way to codify that points-wise, however.
Tom
Date sent: 24-SEP-1996 14:51:21
> Of course, the biggest thing in any Full Thrust game is your ships'
velocity
> relative to fighters and missiles. If your capital ships can safely go
> I'd say that this is one of the things distinguishing many 'standard'
FT
> games. If your velocities are all under 15, fighters will do
This, I would say, is using fighters incorectly. Treat them as part of the
carrying ship, and have them always within 6 to 12" of the carrier and its
escorts. If the enemy want to engage you, they will have to close with the
fighters. (ie, put the fighters where you know the enemy HAS to go).
> From: tsmccart@ewd.dreo.dnd.ca
velocity
> relative to fighters and missiles. If your capital ships can safely
The Right Thing <TM> to do is to make fighters and missiles move in a fashion
similar to the rest of the ships, perhaps allowing some small fudging at the
end to keep them from getting thoroughly screwed.
As a rough draft, I'd play fighters as having a thrust of 6 maximum, using the
nimble maneuver rules (like the kravak or whatever they're called), and allow
them a 2" or 2 clock position fudge after their move to make dogfights and
being able to get into reasonable attack position more likely.
> Of course, the biggest thing in any Full Thrust game is your ships'
velocity
> relative to fighters and missiles. If your capital ships can safely go
FT
> games. If your velocities are all under 15, fighters will do
You bring up a good point. The 'standard' FT rules, however, don't really
allow for cap ships zipping about at high velocities (doesn't fit with our
cinematically-inspired sense of the way they should move).
The way we have fixed that problem with fighters is as was suggested earlier.
Treat each fighter squadron as a seperate "ship" and plot a move for it. FT
movement plots are so easy that this won't take up too much more time. Give
standard fighters a thrust rating of 6 and fast fighters a rating of 9. Allow
them to use up to all of their thrust to change facing (like the Kra'Vak).
This allows the fighters to move more like everything else and not be left
behind. We have even experimented with giving fighters
the option to split their course changes into 3 parts: 1/3 before
moving,
1/3 at midpoint, and 1/3 at the end.
Has anybody else tried some of this? Does it screw up the basic "spirit" of
the game? Would you also want to use the endurance and morale rules?
> On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Adam Delafield wrote:
> This, I would say, is using fighters incorectly. Treat them as part of
Which is fine except when the opponent decides to stand off and pound you with
A or AA batteries. We played one game on the floor, roughly 20' x 20', with
six 2,000 point fleets and a 6' cluster of asteroids in the center. The two
fleets with carriers got badly mauled by the fleet armed soley with missiles
and two fleets heavily armed with A's and AA's. (admittedly they were not
realistic designs since the A's were two arc batteries, port and forward)
Speeds for the game rarely dropped below 20 since even a capital ship with
thrust 2 could easily turn before running
off the board. A lot of the game was just maneuvering just to get within range
of A batteries.
Fighters can be deadly within small, confined boards but moving to huge areas
they quickly drop in importance, unless someone makes an error and
allows his path to cross that of the fighters.
I highly recommend playing once or twice on a huge board. Your tactics and
ship design take on whole new directions.
--Binhan
> At 05:02 PM 9/24/96 +0000, you wrote:
The two fleets with carriers got badly mauled by the fleet armed
> soley with missiles and two fleets heavily armed with A's and AA's.
I wondered if it would make sense to pay for two arcs for batteries and then
declare that to be a 180 degree forward arc?
James
> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, JAMES BUTLER wrote:
> I wondered if it would make sense to pay for two arcs for
YES! (As well as paying for one arc and declaring it to be a
straight-ahead to 90 degrees to one side arc... which is the only
possible arc available to some of the batteries on my Wraithships...)
Date sent: 30-SEP-1996 09:47:42
> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, JAMES BUTLER wrote:
> I wondered if it would make sense to pay for two arcs for
> YES! (As well as paying for one arc and declaring it to be a
And I could put some batteries facing 22.5 degrees to port and starboard to
give a 45 degrees overlap killing zone.
Suggestion. If you use non standard arcs, it may be worthwhile to make up a
firearc template (Like the clock face template in the back of the rulebook).
> On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Adam Delafield wrote:
> Date sent: 30-SEP-1996 09:47:42
In fact the Wraithships have some batteries in the normal 'forward' arc,
and some in the 'skewed' 90-degree arcs to the front-left and
front-right.
> Suggestion. If you use non standard arcs, it may be worthwhile to make
Exactly. I draw a circle sector outside the battery circle to mark in which
directions the battery can fire.
> At 12:14 PM 9/30/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >YES! (As well as paying for one arc and declaring it to be a
arc,
> and some in the 'skewed' 90-degree arcs to the front-left and
Cool. But what's a wraithship?
James
Were can I find more Info on the new set of Full Thrust rules?
Thanks
> Were can I find more Info on the new set of Full Thrust rules?
They're not out yet, but the Fleetbook, soon as it comes out, should give you
an overview of the transition step between FTII and FTIII.
Mk
> Were can I find more Info on the new set of Full Thrust rules?
> Just to expand on Indy's answer, the Fleet Book is due for UK release
And how about release for the fans Down Under? Any news on wif or when we will
be able to get our hands on it?
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> >>Were can I find more Info on the new set of Full Thrust rules?
> Just to expand on Indy's answer, the Fleet Book is due for UK release
Nic at Eureka has ordered 100 or so copies, and they will be shipped to him
ASAP after printing, so you'd better get your pre-orders in to him!!