Outside of the MKW game (where the GM/judge has ruled that human heavy
fighters use screen technology), how many people feel that human heavy
fighters use screens and how many thought they were just tougher (like
armoured hull, etc.)?
Just curious. I have, in the past, treated heavy fighters as if they were
heavier construction, not screened (for purposes of judging vulnerability to
enemy weapons, etc.)
> On 11-Jan-00 at 11:46, Tom.McCarthy (Tom.McCarthy@sofkin.ca) wrote:
Well, the rules talk about heavier construction and give the mechanic, screens
are never mentionned, the mechanic just happens to be the same.
> Just curious. I have, in the past, treated heavy fighters as if they
That's the justification in the rules. I think I would complain if the ref
tried to take away the heavy fighter advantage for which I had paid points.
> Outside of the MKW game (where the GM/judge has ruled that human heavy
I always took it to be an implied 'heavier construction' (eg, better armored,
etc) rather than screened.
Mk
> Tom.McCarthy wrote:
> Just curious. I have, in the past, treated heavy fighters as if they
Well, this is what MT actually says that they are (" "Heavy" fighters.... are
better protected against attack by armoured hulls, heavier structural
componenets etc."), so this is what I use.
MT continues: "When Heavy fighters are attacked, treat them as if they
had LEVEL-1 SCREENS in operation, ie: rolls of "4" have no effect when
under PDAF/ADAF or Fighter weapons fire."
A case of contradicting rules here, since KV fighters obviously fire "fighter
weapons" (and therefore don't hit on rolls of "4") and equally obviously
ignore screens (which the heavy fighters are "treated as" having).
If the explanation after "ie:" hadn't been there, I'd've ruled it like Denny
does, but that explanation together with the PSB description
out-votes his interpretation 2:1 :-/
Regards,
From: "Tom.McCarthy" <Tom.McCarthy@sofkin.ca>
> Outside of the MKW game (where the GM/judge has ruled that human heavy
I go for the "tougher" interpretation. But the PSB can vary to taste. New
Israel "Stealth" fighters act exactly as heavy fighters - the PSB is
that they're harder to target rather than screened or armored. I won't talk
about Stealth 2 fighters...
Look at:
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/sg/fighters.htm
It should be updated within the next couple of hours (should show the heavy
fighter as size 5)
These are all designed according to SG/DS, which doesn't allow screens.
To make heavy fighters under the rules, it required reactive armour (vs GMS) &
PDS systems. I still couldn't do much about direct fire weapons, but there's a
range difference between GMS & direct fire weapons anyway.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> These are all designed according to SG/DS, which doesn't allow
Well, vs ADS, why not require that the ADS actually increasing the armour
rating by 1 (effectively armour 6) thus you'd have to beat 6 in order to
destroy it, and pull 6 chits to damage it.
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Maximum armour for all aerospace fighters is 3 or 1 less than the size
Ahh, good point. Then allowing an increase of one armour point would also
illustrate the fighter's "heavieness" would it not?
Maximum armour for all aerospace fighters is 3 or 1 less than the size class
(whichever is less) under Dirtside/Stargrunt vehicle construction.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> Tom.McCarthy wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Just curious. I have, in the past, treated heavy fighters as if they
The rules state that the human heavy fighters are 'heavy construction'
type ships. However, this logically means that the heavy construction
(read that as Kra'Vak armour) is currently available to all nations. I expect
this lead to some argument! To maintain the 'difference' between the races, I
perfer to play the
human fighters as FT/MT screens rather than KV armour. (House Rules)
Bye for now,
Well, it still has to fit within the available parameters. I give
reactive/ablative +1 armour vs the weapons in Stargrunt, as it doesn't
have an official mechanism. These are already taken into account in DS anyway
with the reduced chit validity.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> Neath Southern Skies wrote:
I suggest that limit be removed for FT fighters.
But then the problem is they have a major advantage against atmospheric
fighters and against ground flak.
Do know how obscene a size 5 / armour 5 fighter can get in SG/DS?
Especially as they ignore all special damage chits in DS (including boom
chits). For aerospace fighters, the Armour doesn't represent physical armour,
but how survivable the airframe is.
For example, the modern A-10 Warthog I would class as following:
Size 2, armour 1, Firecon: Sup A-G, MDC/3, DFO pods. With maybe a
special rule that it can ignore the first *damaged* result, due to it's
reputation
of coming back with 1/2 the airframe missing.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> Neath Southern Skies wrote:
A10 relies on wings to fly. Antigrav and spaceship motors allows tanks to fly!
Suggestions: Use a 2000% points cost for antigrav space fighters. Use very
heavy air defence to oppose them. No GMS or disposable weapons (except
torpedoes against space ships).
> You wrote:
I haven't heard of this rule before! :-\ What page is it on? Thanks!
DSII: Aerospace operations, page 42, column 2, paragraph 3.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
Size 2,
> armour 1, Firecon: Sup A-G, MDC/3, DFO pods. With maybe a special
> Neath Southern Skies wrote:
Ah, yes. Thanks! I remember now that we just replaced it.
We use the special chits against Aerospace in our games. For a Mobility hit,
the craft lands on the table. For a Target Systems Down result, the craft
can't shoot until repaired or the jam is cleared, using the rules on Backup
systems. Boom is Boom as usual. A damaged vehicle is as per any other damaged
vehicle.
> Outside of the MKW game (where the GM/judge has ruled that human heavy
Tougher.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Denny Graver wrote (quoting someone else, whose post
i have lost - sorry!):
> >A case of contradicting rules here, since KV fighters obviously fire
i'd say this is where people's analysis is falling down; in the context of the
heavy fighter rules, 'fighter weapons' mean the weapons mounted on human
fighters; it's a fighter weapon in that it's not a ship weapon, rather than
being the weapon all fighters have. surely this is obvious?
> (and therefore don't hit on rolls of "4") and equally
i always thought it was rather simple.
human ships have screens. kv ships have armour. human heavy fighters have
tough hulls. kv regular fighters have armour (and so count as heavy fighters).
humans use beams. the kv use railguns. screens affect beams, but not railguns.
armour / tough hulls affect beams and railguns.
therefore:
human ships are protected from human (beam) fire, but not from kv (railgun)
fire. kv ships are protected from human (beam) and kv (railgun) fire. heavy
fighters (whether human or kv) are protected from human (beam) and kv
(railgun) fire.
<rant>this isn't hard, and only a silly and pedantic reading of the rules
gets you into trouble.</rant>
the only issue i can see is it suggests that humans have the same tech as the
kv for armouring fighters, which could suggest that humans should be able to
armour ships like the kv do, too. this has to be handwaved around, really: say
that human heavy fighters are better built rather than really armoured (fly
with half the airframe missing, etc), whereas kv fighters really armoured.
tom