Hi, I'm a closet reader - thought I'd finally make a post.
My gaming group and I are currently running an FT campaign - well we
were, but we're going to restart and re-write some of the campaign
stuff. Completely separate to the FT Core rules, in fact almost an entire game
in itself (I'll write up FTCamp0.2 and post in on my website
sometime soon - for now there is the disorganised wiki that covers most
of FTCamp, its out of date though).
Importantly though, we're including and testing some/all of the newish
rules we can find:
> Right now the latest stuff being concentrated on is fighters.
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00286.html - these are a set of
new fighter rules, and they're brilliant. Honestly, they fix fighters
completely (in our opinion), they're no longer uber powerful on their own, but
they still hurt if they get too close. If there is a more recent version of
3rd ed fighter rules can someone tell me... but any back step from these would
be a shame. [Also like the formalisation of Beam Dice]
> Or post them here, and someone will forward them to the playtest
I couldn't get to the playtest forum, so I'm posting all this here
Grasers - no problems from our group, does however tend to indicate
shields as a better option than armour, the new Long Range PTL should counter
that.
AMTs - very powerful if you hit, but (under vector movement) hard to get
right (under Beta-Fighter rules give them 3 'hit points' for reducing
radius)
LPTL - no issues as is
EMPs - no comment, no one has fitted them yet.
SMs - not sure how the Beta-Fighter rules affect these, no one has
fitted them either
We're planning on introducing some of the ideas from:
http://nift.firedrake.org/Weap-Def_Archive.htm
Mostly the blue and green entries. We also have several new systems of
our own - but they are mostly for campaign play, so of lesser interest
to FT 3rd Ed.
> Even general comments on playarea in MU's, shape of playarea, speeds,
After our first attempt at a campaign we found this in particular to be
the most troubling part of battles. We (re-)designed (FTCamp0.2) a
system for groups arriving on a d6 roll, modified by campaign factors.
Starting speeds 0-2x(max thrust).
We originally tried scrolling tables, but after one game hit the wall
(literally) we've decided to probably stop that. Play area is usually
6'x8'.
Right, I've rambled on long enough.
Simon
> >>http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00286.html - these are a
Yes, they're definitely getting somewhere.... right now Real Life (tm), in the
form of an impending house move (the second within 4 months!) is somewhat
impeding me (still) from finding the opportunity
to gather all my current "semi-official-beta-playtest" ideas into one
cohesive lump to allow folks to properly try it out and give us feedback. This
is mainly why it has been confined to the test list till now, because it's far
too fragmented to let out to the main list or other public forums. I think I
can now see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, and provided it's not
just some b*st*rd with a torch bringing more work, I am hopeful that I'll soon
be in a
position to assemble something gaming-public-friendly enough as a
proper beta release... if and when this happens, the listers will be
the first to know!! ;-)
Best,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDoes his best Homer
Simpson impression- "Woohoo!"
> On 10/24/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> I'm curious about this message from Jon:
Moral for fighters was pap, it was an attempt at a fix that didn't
really work. I'll confess the Beta rules I've referenced are quite old -
but they're the best we've seen and played with.
Having a red (life), blue (CEF) and sometimes white (evasion) d6 along next to
each fighter isn't too complicated in our view (compared to the rest of book
keeping in FT), escorting fighters must be touching. Anyone who doesn't have
at least four colours of dice should go stand in a
corner and sulk - especially old faithful, the d6. From that message
(the original to which Jon replied) I can't comment on Heavy Missiles, as no
one has used them. This is a problem with our testing, as it's based inside
our campaign.
If you consider the formalisation of Beam Dice, then the modifers occur in all
other rules, screens are effectly modifiers... it's a matter of
how you choose to word/consider the rule.
Oh - and as a side point, we use the vector movement rules - that's also
kind of important when considering how things work.
Simon
> Simon White wrote:
> Hi, I'm a closet reader - thought I'd finally make a post.
> Importantly though, we're including and testing some/all of the newish
rules we >can find:
> Right now the latest stuff being concentrated on is fighters.
Glad to hear you like them :-)
> If there is a more recent version of 3rd ed fighter rules can someone
The beta-test rules you've used have not been further developed since
they were posted (at least not that I know of), apart from a "condensed"
version where all the commentary and repetitions have been cleared away. (Cue
LL
with an URL..?).
The "pre-alpha" status FT3 fighter rules we're testing now are based on
the
same core concept as the beta-test ones (allowing anti-ship weapons some
ability to engage fighters), but with less book-keeping and complexity.
Like Jon T. wrote however those newer rules aren't complete enough for public
release yet.
> Other systems:
<g> FWIW one of the reasons for introducing Grasers and EMPs was to give
players reasons to start using screens again, after the several new or
updated screen-skipping weapons described in the Fleet Books (K-guns,
P-torps, Salvo Missiles etc.) caused many players to dump screens
entirely in favour of armour <g>
***
> Mk Kochte wrote:
> Even general comments on playarea in MU's, shape of playarea,
These data are *very* important, because how well different weapons and
tactics work in the game varies greatly depending on what size your gaming
area is and how fast you fly. For example, if your gaming table is only
~50mu wide the various range-24 weapons (B2s, Pulser-M etc.) gain power
simply because the enemy can't easily keep out of their range, whereas on a
gaming table 80-100mu wide longer-ranged weapons grow more powerful.
Hi
We have been playing several campaigns of Full Thrust involving up to a
dozen players over the last 2-3 years.
We use home brew fleets often inspired by a particular SciFi universe.
During this process we modified the rules and eventually codified them into
one version. We incorporated a number of weapon systems from the websites and
some we
made up as a group ourselves.
One thing that has become apparent is that the Organic tech ships as they
stand need some rework. Many of the systems are same mass as for a standard
tech ship but then require the same mass of generators to use. It's not
economic to mount screen generators on an organic ship because ti takes 20% of
the ships mass to make them work. So after several players have designed ships
in our campaigns no one uses screens at all.
The thing we found 2 powerful is the ability of organic ships to fire all
their power out of one stinger node in any arc. It's very powerful when the
ship can get 360 coverage for 4 mass and fire all its firepower backwards
while it cruises away from the enemy.
Has anyone done any battle reports with biotech ships that suggest that
screens and other defensive systems are effective compared to buying more
hull, and generators. This is also an effective defence because if the enmy
dies quicker they can't fire back.
Thanks
> The thing we found [too] powerful [about the Sa'Vasku]
My impression is that stingers will be revised so that doesn't happen. One
suggestion is that if you put more than N power points through a stinger,
you have to roll before firing to see if you burn out the node--the more
power you push through, the higher your chance of blowing out the node.
However, I'm not much into the Sa'Vasku so I don't recall the other
suggestions.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 10/26/2006 6:33:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> laserlight@verizon.net writes:
> The thing we found [too] powerful [about the Sa'Vasku]
My impression is that stingers will be revised so that doesn't happen. One
suggestion is that if you put more than N power points through a stinger,
you have to roll before firing to see if you burn out the node--the
more power you push through, the higher your chance of blowing out the node.
However, I'm not much into the Sa'Vasku so I don't recall the other
suggestions.
I am avid SaVasku player, I feel giving their sge in spave and a ancient
being, they would have developed the ability to over come "burnout" After all,
they are not using breakers made in the 1920s to operate a nuclear power
reactor.. Makes them a powerful foe. If you are going to hinder SaVasku, might
as well hinder the Phalons as well, while at it, Everyone I know say the UNSC
Grasers are FAR to powerful for a human weapon. Thank god we can always ignore
updates. I plan on continueing the SaVasku as they are now. A dmonite force
that humans will be forced to team up on.
Be sides, sure, SaVasku can dump all their power in weapons amd fire out of a
single node. Big deal.. That just means they are crippled with no defences and
poor manuevering. Sitting duck especially if you out manuever them or out gun
them.
Having run game, at conventions, including ECC GZG, SaVasku have never been as
powerful as you talk about them. I personally see no need to hinder them.
Vince
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lVins
When playtesting the phrase "I am an avid XXX player" usually destroys any
objectivity that person has about game balance.
The ability of SV ships to fire all their firepower in any arc is extremely
powerful, especially if you allow for a rolling board rather than artificially
restricting the battle to a static table size. Being able to control the range
of the engagement and fire backward out to 48" is something no other ship can
do.
In our group we restricted stinger nodes to 8 power each. We also allowed SV
ships to have Grazer nodes and heavy beam nodes costing more mass and
requiring more power per beam dice generated.
But the general consensus in our group is that the SV ships are boring to
design and play with you trend towards a design of ship which is a generalised
cruiser drone womb, pod launcher some stinger nodes and
about a 2-2-1 division of the rest of the mass between hull generators
and armour. This is a reflection that the SV seem to have ships that are
generalists rather than the big variations you get in human tech ships.
For larger ships the other option is to make a carrier with 3 drone wombs,
that is about all the effective options.
It's not worth the dead weight to try and put screen nodes in under the
current format.
Grazers are a spectacular weapon under the official rules. The take up so much
mass you get so few dice but occasionally you will get 6 on 6 and do 5 or 6 d6
damage to an enemy ship utterly crippling the vessel. I think this sticks in
the minds of players and assumes a disproportionate impact in their minds.
Our group are all scarred from massed capitol missiles used by one player a
couple of years ago, that fleet is still talked about rather like the mythical
bogeyman.
With all the full thrust gaming groups taking their rules off in different
directions and the game essentially being open source for so long is there
really any point in publishing new rules mechanisms? Different gaming groups
have taken their version of the game and run with it so it's not really one
game any more but thousands of different versions.
John
[quoted original message omitted]
John,
I think that publishing (even if it's only PDF published) FT3 still has merit.
It allows for a few things that just allowing folks to "house rule" doesn't.
1) It makes it easier to introduce new space gamers into the fold. It's fine
if you can find a group that already plays, but that's not always the case.
2) It allows for many scattered components found in FT, MT, FB1, FB2, and
multiple web sites to be consolidated into one place. I'll buy a copy just for
that.
3) It allows Jon to be the final arbiter of which version of some things that
are still in flux (figher rules?) and put out something that people
can use cross-group at cons or during visits or whatever.
Just another thought on it.:)
John
> With all the full thrust gaming groups taking their rules off in
I don't have the time to spend writing a lot of house-rules and
playtesting them, etc... So when I buy a set of rules (which I and my gaming
group did, when one had to buy FT). I want them to be complete,
ready and playable and near-balanced. It's what I pay for when I buy
rules.
FT's rules aren't balanced. They have some serious breakage in certain areas
that has caused my gaming group to eschew FT in favor of other
space-ship combat rules that I'll neglect to specifically name here.
Thats just the fact of things in my gaming group, I don't intend that to
be a "bash" on GZG. It's a good company, and you won't hear me saying
otherwise.
FT-III, insofar as it's intended to fix breakages in the rules, would
give me something to look at and consider rules-wise. It might get my
gaming group back into FT. So there's one perspective on what the point
is for at least a few people in publishing new rules mechanisms.
I haven't stopped using GZG ships though, neither has the rest of my group,
and I'm still selling GZG ships at conventions. That's the
beauty of GZG's products. No lock-in to either the figures or the
rules.
--Flak
> john tailby wrote:
<<<SNIP>>>
> With all the full thrust gaming groups taking their rules off in
> long is there really any point in publishing new rules mechanisms?
Whoops! I missed that paragraph.
I've seen plenty of folks still playing original FTII, and more power to them.
Most folks on the list have admitted to some adjustment to the rules, and
there's still plenty of options to make it your own game. However,
4) '...put out something that people can use cross-group at cons or
during visits or whatever...' deserves it's own bullet, even if other things
stay in flux!
5) A new publication makes it a new game in some folks eyes. Those who may
have stumbled on the few glaring inconsistancies may give it another try.
Others try ANYTHING new.
Smacks of marketing, but Jon's not above that, nor should he be.
It's hardly like the flavor-of-the-month module/army book you get from
SOME
companies. ;->=
The_Beast
Mr. Lerchey wrote on 10/27/2006 07:45:42 AM:
> John,
Mr. Tailby wrote on 10/27/2006 02:50:35 AM:
> > With all the full thrust gaming groups taking their rules off in
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNow that there's
all this crazy talk of putting stuff in the same place for
easy access- has anyone put all of the new beta test info in one spot
(maybe the GZG website or something)? Seems it would make things alot easier
for FT players like me (yes, vain self interest) who are just now coming out
of their shells and looking to contribute.
On a side note- for my fellow Yanks, Noble Knight games is carrying the
whole GZG Full Thrust line now. Don't know if this is an official thing or
not, but just wanted to pass it along.
James
> On 10/27/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
> But the general consensus in our group is that the SV ships are boring
I have to agree with that a bit. My designs tend towards a generalist cruiser
with a stinger node, a pod launcher, a drone womb, and then about
the 2-2-1 division above. I must admit. It does save on making SSDs ;-)
Another justification for FT3 (and one of the strongest for me) is that some
gaming groups do *not* tinker with the rules on their own. For them a new
rulebook represents a welcome revitalizing of the game that gets them playing
again. A new Dirtside book would work the same way for us here.
Personally, I really like to see all the little odd bits (heavy missiles,
decoys, Wave Cannon, sensors...) from the earlier books blended into the new
book with final rulings on how they should interact.
In my opinion, "official" designs for all the *many* new ships are way
overdue as well. I like being able to just pick out the designs and get going.
The real beauty of it is that all the groups that have invested time and
effort in their own versions won't have to give that up, and may even find new
bits to add in.
grant
> John,
It's fine if you can find a group that already plays, but that's not always
the case.
> 2) It allows for many scattered components found in FT, MT, FB1, FB2,
> Another justification for FT3 (and one of the strongest for me) is
DSIII was being playtested at ECC-9 -- which in no way makes it DS-9.
> In my opinion, "official" designs for all the *many* new ships are
Which is why we've had them posted online for..hm, quite a while now. As you
can tell, from the flood of AARs that are rolling in every day....<grin>
> In my opinion, "official" designs for all the *many* new ships are
As
> you can tell, from the flood of AARs that are rolling in every
GZG have released many new models for the classic fleets from fleet book one
without releasing new SSDs for them. There are an increasing number of models
without SSDs, several whole ranges of models IIRC. Some fleets have been in
unofficial publication for years with no advancement.
There is little or no point in posting AARs if there isn't any feedback or
progress it's not motivating to just send in reports for no response.
If you want people to send in reports the play testers need to report on
what they do with them and what changes they considered and implemented as a
result of the games.
> Vince wrote:
> I am avid SaVasku player, I feel giving their sge in spave and a
They can: simply use more Stingers to channel the power through...
> After all, they are not using breakers made in the 1920s to operate a
If they are more powerful, they should cost more points to reflect that power.
As it is now, the SV ships cost *less* than other ships of the same
TMF... as the saying goes, "quantity has a quality all of its own" :-/
> Having run game, at conventions, including ECC GZG, SaVasku have never
Do you design your own SV ships along the lines John described, or do you
stick to the designs from FB2?
Kind regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 10/28/2006 7:48:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se writes:
> After all, they are not using breakers made in the 1920s to operate a
If they are more powerful, they should cost more points to reflect that
power. As it is now, the SV ships cost *less* than other ships of the same
TMF... as the saying goes, "quantity has a quality all of its own" :-/
I would agree the NPV value are lower then they should actually be. With that
thought in mind, I have already begun toying with the NPV values and see how
they match up in single combat then small fleet combat and then of course
large fleet use
> Having run game, at conventions, including ECC GZG, SaVasku have never
> been as powerful as you talk about them. I personally see no need to
Do you design your own SV ships along the lines John described, or do you
stick to the designs from FB2?
I had built one or two, but decided to stick strictly with the book version
for the main reason of them being living entities. More brown and aging then
be9ng "built" in the sense of what Kravak and humans do when they build new
ships or custom classes.
Vince
> Vince wrote:
> >Having run game, at conventions, including ECC GZG, SaVasku have
OK. FWIW the SV designs shown in FB2 are rather poor compared to what can be
built under the SV ship design rules, so if you've only built a few designs of
your own you might not have experienced just how powerful *optimized* SV
designs are.
> for the main reason of them being living entities.
Living, sure, but artificial. There's nothing in either the texts or the SV
ship design to stop the Sa'Vasku from creating (growing, breeding, whatever)
more powerful warships... and given the SV combat rules in FB2, the SV come
across as rather stupid when they insist on growing such inefficient warship
designs when they could do so much better for
themselves :-/
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 10/28/2006 1:11:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se writes:
> OK. FWIW the SV designs shown in FB2 are rather poor compared to what
Yes, anyone can "build" a more powerful ship then the books use. SV, Phalon,
NSL, hell even the ESU. Yes, One of the designed I toyed with on the SV was a
BB that could lob 2 die at 72" (6ft), which in close range is equal to a
pickle barrel of dice LOL
At the same token, I biult an NSL Dreadnought with 12 class 3 beams. Again,
pick every d6 you can find and start throwing. An ESU Battleship that has like
60 hull boxes.
For shits and giggles, I toyed the designs from the books to put Wave Guns and
Nova Cannons and cloaking feilds on DDs andsuch. Just to see what it would
look like.
Ok, here is my question now: After reading through the books and all. The
books encourage you to make
all
designs and say to feel free to toy and play around with options and such. So
with that in mind, what is wrong with me and my group here in Cleveland liking
the SV they way they and usign them as such? After all, out main
ouitlook is that humans are not exactly the center of the universe in
technology and while we have the ability to adapt and oversome heartaches and
defeats. You will ot always defeat an alien race in straight face to fact
combat. Why the invention of "TACTICS" comes in to play. Out manuevering your
enemy, Out
numbering your enemy, and of course the final factor in all hames, luck of the
die rolls. So why am I so wrong for liking the present designs and using them
as they are put?
Vince
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lVince,
That's exactly why I never let folks design their own ships and stick
strictly to the FB1/2 ships and a few variants thereof.
Bob
_____
From: gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of
VinsFullThrust@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:12 PM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)
In a message dated 10/28/2006 1:11:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se writes:
> OK. FWIW the SV designs shown in FB2 are rather poor compared to what
> designs of your own you might not have experienced just how powerful
Yes, anyone can "build" a more powerful ship then the books use. SV, Phalon,
NSL, hell even the ESU. Yes, One of the designed I toyed with on the SV was a
BB that could lob 2 die at 72" (6ft), which in close range is equal to a
pickle barrel of dice LOL
At the same token, I biult an NSL Dreadnought with 12 class 3 beams. Again,
pick every d6 you can find and start throwing. An ESU Battleship that has like
60 hull boxes.
For shits and giggles, I toyed the designs from the books to put Wave Guns and
Nova Cannons and cloaking feilds on DDs andsuch. Just to see what it would
look like.
Ok, here is my question now:
After reading through the books and all. The books encourage you to make all
designs and say to feel free to toy and play around with options and such. So
with that in mind, what is wrong with me and my group here in Cleveland liking
the SV they way they and usign them as such? After all, out main ouitlook is
that humans are not exactly the center of the universe in technology and while
we have the ability to adapt and oversome heartaches and defeats. You will ot
always defeat an alien race in straight face to fact combat. Why the invention
of "TACTICS" comes in to play. Out manuevering your enemy, Out numbering your
enemy, and of course the final factor in all hames, luck of the die rolls. So
why am I so wrong for liking the present designs and using them as they are
put?
Vince
> Vince wrote:
> > OK. FWIW the SV designs shown in FB2 are rather poor compared to
The problem here is that custom-built SV ships gain far *more* power
over
their Fleet Book compatriots than custom-built ships from any of the
others navies do. Let's look at your examples:
> Yes, One of the designed I toyed with on the SV was a BB that could lob
2 dice at 72mu means 64 dice at close range. With a reasonable hull
integrity, a smallish carapace and some spicules for close-in defence
such a ship would have an NPV of ~400 pts. The FB2 Ann'Var'Teth is of a
similar size and has slightly stronger hull, but can throw less than half as
many
dice at any range. Did you use this 64-dice ship in battle, BTW?
> At the same token, I biult an NSL Dreadnought with 12 class 3 beams.
36 dice at close range, ie. just over half of what the SV battleship above
could throw. Assuming standard NSL hulls, engines and armour but no fighter
bay this NSL ship would have TMF ~240, NPV ~800; so a pair of the above SV
battleships would cost as much and have about 2/3rds as many hull boxes
as the NSL ship... but more than three times the firepower.
> An ESU Battleship that has like 60 hull boxes.
If it is of a similar size as the FB1 battleships it won't have any
armament to speak of; and if it BDN-sized it fits right in alongside the
ESU Rostov (55 hull boxes) and NSL Szent Istvan (60 hull boxes).
> For shits and giggles, I toyed the designs from the books to put Wave
I'm curious here: How do you outnumber an enemy whose ships are rather cheaper
per Mass than yours are, or outmanoeuvre an enemy whose slowest ships can make
turns twice as tight as your fastest escorts?
> So why am I so wrong for liking the present designs and using them as
There's nothing wrong with that for GAMING purposes.
But we're talking PLAYTEST here, not social gaming. For PLAYTEST purposes
using the book designs only means that your experience with the game
balance issues that arise from using home-grown Sa'Vasku designs is very
likely to be limited. Any claim that the rules work fine as they are is only
valid if you've actually taken the rules to their extremes and found
them to work fine there too - but if you only use the book designs, then
you *haven't* taken the rules to their extremes.
Regards,
> So with that in mind, what is wrong with me and my group here in
Not a thing. However, as written in FB2, they're underpriced. One way of
dealing with that is simply to raise the price; the other way is to nerf the
designs. I didn't pay attention to that discussion but my impression is that
decision to add burnouts was unanimous among the relevant Playtest List
members.
If you'd rather keep SV the way they are and have fair fights (or have an
accurate idea how unfair the fight is), then you'd need to raise the price a
bit.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 10/28/2006 8:57:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se writes:
I'm curious here: How do you outnumber an enemy whose ships are rather cheaper
per Mass than yours are, or outmanoeuvre an enemy whose slowest
ships can make turns twice as tight as your fastest escorts?
One, as said earlier that I do agree with completely. Raise the cost of each
class. besides, SV still have to allocate power to several systems, they
cant arm all systmes and out manuever an enemt reguardless hos much power gens
you gave them. They still siffer having to allocate between several things.
> Vince wrote:
> I'm curious here: How do you outnumber an enemy whose ships are rather
> each class.
That works if you only ever play with the published designs. *You* do, yes;
but unless we force everyone else to do so too simply raising the points
value doesn't solve the problem.
> besides, SV still have to allocate power to several systems, they cant
The *FB2* SV designs don't have enough power to do it, but optimized SV
designs do. It doesn't take much power to outmanoeuvre humans or Phalons;
outmanoeuvring Kraks is a bit harder but still doable. For example, that
64-power battleship discussed in my previous post would be able to
outmanouevre any of the FB2 Kra'Vak designs and still have 46 power points to
spare for arming its weapons.
Regards,