In a vain, desparate yet noble & valiant manuver, I will attempt to get the
list back on the topic of GZG products.
In the Fleet Book &/or EFSB (I have neither yet), what sort of
distinctions
are made between atmospheric-capable and non-capable fighters - aside
from the obvious, of course?
In any sources, or our fevered imaginations, are missiles considered to be one
big weapon, or a volley of smaller ones?
If either of these questions have been asked & answered before, forgive me.
I'm just trying to generate a little interest in the games.
> You wrote:
> In any sources, or our fevered imaginations, are missiles considered
I generally think of Missles as one big one, in the revered tradition of...
of... I dunno. Just my imagination. From what I gather from our Brit friends
who have the book already (Grumble, grumble) there is a new weapon introduced
there which is a bunch of smaller ones.
> NVDoyle wrote:
> In the Fleet Book &/or EFSB (I have neither yet), what sort of
> Noah V. Doyle
In EFSB the fighters either are or are not atmosphere capable. But the ships
are another mater entirely. Rather then does the model look streamlined thing
in FT2, the ships have one or two icons for atmosphere capabilities. If all
are destroyed then the ship is two beat up to make an entry. They are not
ships systems exactly but for damage treat them if they were.
> It's my understanding/interpretation that missiles (MT version) are
I think that's so. The MT/FT missiles are basically more equivalent to
naval torpedoes, wheres the FB SML/R's are pepperbox launchers, like the
rocket pods you get on modern combat aircraft.
Are they going to redesign all the FT models with little launch turrets,
that's the question..
TTFN
Jon
> Noah wrote:
> In the Fleet Book &/or EFSB (I have neither yet), what sort of
No non-obvious distinction for fighters in either. EFSB ships mark
atmospheric capability with special systems; FB doesn't mark the ability in
any way but imposes a Mass cost for the capability when designing the ship.
> In any sources, or our fevered imaginations, are missiles considered
The sources differ (...ie, the various SF novels differ...). EFSB doesn't have
missiles (the only ones I can remember used in B5 appear in Season
4,
and EFSB covers the EF up 'til B5 gets operational or so). FB still allows the
old MT missiles, but also introduces SML (Salvo Missile Launchers) that throw
packs of smaller missiles at a target. Each pack is represented by a single
counter.
Later,
> In any sources, or our fevered imaginations, are missiles considered to
It's my understanding/interpretation that missiles (MT version) are
single entities with Big Bang, and the new weapon, the Salvo Missiles (found
in the FleetBook), are a 'pod' of missiles (1d6 of them which will acquire
their target).
Mk
Oerjan Ohlson wrote
> The sources differ (...ie, the various SF novels differ...). EFSB
Based on the assumption that the missiles seen in season 4 are not a recent
invention EFSB will have to be modified to use them. The missiles there were
salvoes. Hyperion class ships also carried them it seems as that's what
Sheridan used on the Lexington (minus their delivery
systems) to take out the Black Star. One can only guess if ship-borne
missiles are salvo or indivdual.
> You wrote:
The only new weapon in the Fleet book is the Salvo Munition
Launcher/battery. Its basically a missile launcher which fires out a
volley (up to 6 smaller missiles) instead of the big 'cruise' type missiles of
MT.
Personally I still prefer the MT missiles, although I think I'm in the
minority there.
> Jon writes:
> Are they going to redesign all the FT models with little launch
Well, I could never find any beam emitter-thingies - I presumed that
they were
all under armor/hull when not in use.
> From what I have heard, the movement rules change pretty radically in
As for particle beams vs. ships, the way I always played was that standard
beam weapons were lasers, usually of very high power and wavelength (HighUV up
to Xray. Grasers were a bit much). Particle beams were a beam system with
identical damage performance, but each time a ship was hit, it took a
level-1
threshold check, with damage lasting only 1 turn. They were very interesting
in play. I decided to restrict them to 1 arc, to represent the aiming
problems with long, static tubes. It was a bit of Traveller-esque
gameplay that was a lot of fun.
> Personally I still prefer the MT missiles, although I think I'm in the
Depends on what side (receiving/giving) end I'm on :)
Question for people with the Fleet Book: do the new "fighter screen" rules
allow them to engage MT missiles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> From what I have heard, the movement rules change pretty radically in
Well...I wouldn't necessarily call the changes radical...esp since the new
movement system introduced is optional. You have 2 movement systems you can
choose from: the current FT movement system (Cinematic) or a vectored movement
system (ala the vectored movement system posted on here so many eons
ago).
Of course you'll notice I'm ignoring fighters and MT missiles in this. It's
not specifically mentioned if these two systems would move as per current
rules or if and how they would move under vectored movement.
Mk
----------
> Från: BEST, David <dbest@shl.com>
---
> Based on the assumption that the missiles seen in season 4 are not a
They weren't a recent invention. They were probably invented long before
the Minbari ever moved into space :-/
The EFSB space combat system doesn't cover any of the old races, so it
isn't surprising that those missiles aren't included in it :-) When the
appropriate RPG module is published it'll probably include space combat rules
for the old ones too.
According to EFSB, the Lexington was a Nova-class rather than a
Hyperion.
The warheads used are only referred to as "mines" in the show - it never
mentions any missiles being stripped down IIRC - but what else would
they bring nukes for?
Later,
> Of course you'll notice I'm ignoring fighters and MT missiles in this.
It's
> not specifically mentioned if these two systems would move as per
The fighter rules sort of preclude any set of vector movement rules without
significant tinkering. They don't *have* thrust vectors or velocities as such,
they just sort of 'jump' about the place. If you change them, fighter 'clumps'
just become little frigates or so. I'd rather they stayed as they were.
MT missiles are nowhere NEAR as effective as SML/R's believe me. I think
they'll become pretty much obsolete pretty quickly, especially with the new
enhanced pulse torps..
TTFN
Jon
> At 11:45 14/05/98 -0600, you wrote:
rules
> allow them to engage MT missiles?
Don't remember it being mentioned one way or the other. I can see logical
arguments both ways. Anyone got a preference?
TTFN
Jon
> At 11:45 14/05/98 -0600, you wrote:
rules
> allow them to engage MT missiles?
I'd be inclined to say yes on this one, though for no other reason than the
idea that the fighters are "sitting" there just waiting for something to shoot
at. Fighter or missile shouldn't make that much of a difference. On the other
hand, in the case of a combined fighter and missile threat to a screened ship,
I'd rule that the fighters have to be dealt with first.