MT Missiles vs. Kra'Vak Scatter Packs

Kra'Vak Scatter Packs vs. MT Missiles - how do people out there handle
these situations?

Thanks,

Aimee

Since Scatter Packs roll 1-6 for damage and an MT Missile only has 1
damage point, it is an automatic kill. But the Scatter Packs must target each
MT Missile individually.

> At 6:41 AM -0400 6/11/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:

How do you balance the fact that MT missiles are more difficult for PDS and
fighters to engage?

For example, PDS will take down MT missiles on a 6 where as Salvo Missiles are
handled as for beams. Thats greatly smaller chance (1 in 6) than with SMs or
Fighters. I've always taken it to be represented by the fact that MT missiles
have a higher energy terminal phase as well as a large number of advanced
penetration aids and decoys.

> --- kaime@mindspring.com wrote:

Is this a formal ruling from GZG (maybe from a tournament ruling) or your
suggestion? Seems like even hitting on a 5 or 6, the Kra'vak were pretty
resistant to missiles. With 1 guaranteed kill per missile, that seems like
you'd have to really have a lot of missiles. Perhaps this is intended, I don't
know.

> --- John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:

First off, I assume that we mean the KV Scatterguns not Submunitions packs
(which cannot attack fighters/missiles).

According to Oerjan (official playtester), that the verbage on p.7 of
Fleetbook 1 under PDS applies to MT Missiles and Salvo Missiles when it
states "A roll of ... 4-5 kills 1 missile...while a 6 kills 2..." except
that you are targeting each MT Missile separately, so 1 is the maximum kill
from a single PDS. The same would apply to the Anti-Fighter/Missile
systems in FB2 as well.

So MT missiles are no harder to hit than Salvo Missiles by PDS and other
Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Missile weapons under Fleet Book rules. The only
difference is that you have to target each missile seperatly (instead of a
salvo of missiles). Any "spillover fire" (fire that would have damaged more
than one missile) is lost.

FB2 indicates that a KV Scattergun kills 1-6 fighters or missiles.

I, too, prefered to keep the MT reading of the MT Missiles where they are only
hit on a roll of a 6 for PDS style weapons. Since Scatterguns do about 3 times
the damage of a PDS in a single shot, I would have probably give any
Scattergun a 50/50 chance to hit an MT missile (hit on 4+).

-----
Brian Bell
-----

> -----Original Message-----

Really most Kra'Vak don't have that many Scatterguns, and since I normally
see +/-15 MT missile at least fired at once ... half will get through on
the
biggest ships (the little ships have +/- 3-4 Scatterguns) and then there
are
no more Scatterguns left for any defense vs. missile/ MT missiles, nor
fighters.

I'd like to see a canon/official ruling since our group will be running
some events at WarFair in Atlanta GA USA this weekend including Kra'Vak vs.
Hu'Man battles. Any chance of an canon or at least tournament ruling?

Aimee

[quoted original message omitted]

***
I'd like to see a canon/official ruling since our group will be running
some events at WarFair in Atlanta GA USA this weekend including Kra'Vak vs.
Hu'Man battles. Any chance of an canon or at least tournament ruling?
***

For a tournament ruling, shouldn't you be talking to the tournament organizer?

The_Beast

-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon

One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad

> At 2:11 PM -0400 6/11/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:

Yes.

> According to Oerjan (official playtester), that the verbage on p.7 of
except
> that you are targeting each MT Missile separately, so 1 is the maximum

That would appear to mean that there is no difference. I've always understood
MT Missiles to be different. Specifically due to the old MT rules of PDS fire
working one way against Fighters and another against MT missiles. Since in FB1
salvo missiles were resolved just like fighters, it seemed that MT missiles
were handled differently. I also understood that section to be talking about
Salvo Missile fire resolution.

Which means our group was playing MT missiles wrong.

> So MT missiles are no harder to hit than Salvo Missiles by PDS and

This I understood.

> I, too, prefered to keep the MT reading of the MT Missiles where they

This was how I held to rules to work. Aye, this was more to what I was
thinking. Though one of our local folks, deemed we should go with 5,6 for MT
missiles.

I guess that's me, or at least I'm one of the organizers - so I'd like
to know if there is such a conon or official ruling so we all will be on the
same page at the Con. If there is not such a ruling that's fine also.

I know within the group I play with (+/-30 people) we have a few
different views. I think we'll just let the one running th specific event make
the decision, sans an canon or official ruling being posted.

In other words, for the Cons (this and others) and the games we have every
week, I'd like to know.

A

[quoted original message omitted]

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> At 6:41 AM -0400 6/11/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

KV will have to have a dense fleet pack so ships can support each other with
the Scatterguns. Scatterguns have ADFC capibility.

- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of
kaime@mindspring.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:13 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: MT Missiles vs. Kra'Vak Scatter Packs

I guess that's me, or at least I'm one of the organizers - so I'd
like to know if there is such a conon or official ruling so we all will be on
the same page at the Con. If there is not such a ruling that's fine also.

I know within the group I play with (+/-30 people) we have a few
different views. I think we'll just let the one running th specific event make
the decision, sans an canon or official ruling being posted.

In other words, for the Cons (this and others) and the games we have every
week, I'd like to know.

A

- -----Original Message-----
From: devans@uneb.edu <devans@uneb.edu>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Date: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: MT Missiles vs. Kra'Vak Scatter Packs

> ***

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOyVtTNOVrCdNYgyBEQKr6ACgxizn1oKSqjj29+LjHK8Q/Yas+PEAnRAi
0ph2XEq4NnyuLQx1x+7rScMM
=Lbpb

> At 1:57 PM -0500 6/11/01, devans@uneb.edu wrote:

Well, for all practical purposes, the tournament is being run by the local GZG
group. Myself and Mark are getting roped into the Dirtside organization. Aimee
and Scott are handling the FT aspect for the most part. This question came up
I suspect as a result of my trying a different tactic against the Kra'Vak this
past Saturday. It had come up in theory before, but I'm the main proponent and
user of MT missiles in the group.

Actually the person who plays the "pirates" uses them the most. In fact a lot
of the group uses MT missiles. The question has come up before, but in looking
over things fro WarFair I saw that this aspect of the rules needed
clarification. Seems there are many opinions on how to actually resolve this
Scattergun vs. MT missiles.

A

[quoted original message omitted]

On 12-Jun-01 at 09:25, kaime@mindspring.com (kaime@mindspring.com)
wrote:
> Actually the person who plays the "pirates" uses them the most. In

Looking at the damage potential of a scattergun it is painful to use them on
fighters or Salvo Missiles. How much more so to use them on a More Thrust
Missile? I personally was considering using MT missiles to blunt that close in
attack a worthwhile thing even if I lost 1 MT missile per scattergun used. If
Oerjan is an indication (and he seems to be a pretty good one) the official
ruling will probably be 1 scattergun per MT missile.

> At 9:29 AM -0400 6/12/01, Roger Books wrote:

Remember though, scatter packs are 50% less effective against Heavy Fighters.
D6 Halved, rounded up. That provides a useful yardstick does it not?

(I'm guessing on the correct percentages here, statistics aren't my forte)

PDS vs fighters 4,5 - 1; 6 - 2.  60% effective
PDS vs salvo missiles 4,5 - 1; 6 - 2. 60% effective
PDS vs Heavy Fighters 5 - 1; 6 - 2. 40% effective
PDS vs MT missiles 6 only. 20% effective?

Scatterpacks vs fighters D6. about 75% effective Scatterpacks vs missiles D6.
90% effective (vs the d6 SMs)
Scatterpacks vs Heavy Fighters, 1/2 D6.
Scatterpacks vs MT Missiles D6???! 100% effective

Scatterpacks are very effective against Salvo Missiles or Fighters, and half
as effective against Heavy Fighters. And totally effective against MT
missiles? What is a MT missile if not a very heavy Salvo Missile?

> on a More Thrust Missile? I personally was considering using MT

True, but the 2-3 rate of burning those scatter packs vs the one per
one (given the number that you can land on those very maneuverable Kra'Vak) is
fairly significant a difference.

Here we go again...

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> At 9:29 AM -0400 6/12/01, Roger Books wrote:

Damage potential? 1 single-shot beam die less its re-roll at range 6 or
less... not *that* impressive, I think.

> Remember though, scatter packs are 50% less effective against Heavy

It does indeed. A single Heavy fighter is harder for a PDS to kill than an MT
missile is (the Heavy is hit on rolls of 5 and 6, the MT missile on rolls of 4
through 6), and yet the Heavy fighter is still automatically destroyed if hit
by a Scattergun. Why then would the MT missile, which is a softer target than
a lone Heavy fighter, not be destroyed by the scattergun?

> Richard Bell wrote:

> An MT missile is four times as durable as a SM (PDS destroys 4/6 of an

<groan> No, no, NO. *PDAF* and *ADAF* both destroy 1/6 of an MTM per
shot. Neither of those systems exist in the Fleet Books.

The Fleet Book PDS destroys 1/2 MTM per shot (misses on 1-3, hits on
4-6).

Regards,

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> At 9:29 AM -0400 6/12/01, Roger Books wrote:

You forgot to look at how many fighters are destroyed, and your numbers are a
little off

PDS vs fighters 4,5,-1; 6-2, 66% effective
PDS vs missiles, also 66% effective PDS vs heavy fighters 50% effective

Scattergun vs fighters & missiles: 100-600% effective
Scattergun vs heavy fighters: 100-300% effective
Scatterguns vs PB's: 100-300% effective
Scatterguns versus ships: 66% effective

Every 100% effectiveness equates to one point of damage.
All small targets (non-ships) suffer at least one point of damage when
fired upon by a scattergun. This implies that a scattergun is guaranteed to
obliterate whatever it is fired at, but it is not guaranteed that other
potential targets near the main target will be struck.

[PSB extrapolated from rules]
Scatterguns would be fired at the centroid of an incoming group of fighters or
missiles, except that this centroid may not actually coincide with any of the
individual targets, so the aim point is actually shifted to the individual
within the group that is the closest (by least squares approximation) to the
centroid to ensure that at least one of the threats is caught in the scatter

> At 8:46 PM +0200 6/12/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

This is what is throwing me. Why does FB pds work different? PDAF was
effectively what PDS is. The mechanism vs fighters didn't change at all. Why
is PDS more effective against MT missiles?

> Ryan Gill wrote:

Same reason as the Needle beams changed, and the P-torps, and the
standard beam weapons, and the entire ship design system...

Regards,

> Richard Bell wrote:

[Ryan Gill's numbers snipped]

> You forgot to look at how many fighters are destroyed, and your

And Richard either ignored or forgot the (optional but recommended)
re-rolls, which boost the efficiencies to 80% against a full-strength
non-heavy fighter squadron or 6-missile SM salvo and to 60% against a
full-strength heavy fighter squadron :-/

> Scattergun vs fighters & missiles: 100-600% effective

No, 66% effective against PBs. Check FB2 p.36, 7th paragraf.

Regards,

Alright. A couple of things, first.

ADAF was done away with. Its funciton is split between PDS and ADFC. ADFC
allows the ship it is on to use its PDS fire to protect another ship that is
within 6mu, from fighter or missile attack. The ability to fire at
non-attacking fighters was lost. This means that an ADFC with 1 PDS is
less effective that 2 ADAFs (on a mass to mass compairison). An ADFC with 2
PDS is almost as effective as 2 ADAFs. And an ADFC with 3 or more PDS is more
effective that the equivilent mass in ADAFs.

Did PDAF change when going to PDS. It depends on how you look at it. I viewed
it as not having changed, but the way missiles are defended against changed.
But, you could look at it like PDAF lost the extra strike ability against MT
Missiles in exchange for the ability to be more effecient when combined with
ADFC.

The way anit-missile attacks are handled changed with the introduction
of Salvo Missiles. MT Missiles are not referenced, specifically, in FB1 except
on p. 11, where it provides mass/cost for them. I think that the rule
change could have been made for 2 reasons. 1) To simplify the game and use
just one mechanic vs missiles (of any type). 2) To reduce the value of MT
Missiles. MT Missiles, when used in mass, were too powerful and led to PT Boat
like craft that jumped in, droped thier missiles and jumped out. I think that
they were just forgotten (although Oerjan and the other playtesters could
shead light on if/how MT Missiles were tested under FB rules).

-----
Brian Bell
http://www.ftsr.org/

> At 12:21 PM -0400 6/13/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
ADFC
> allows the ship it is on to use its PDS fire to protect another ship

But with 2 ADFCs and 4 PDS, more effective than 3 PDAF and 3 ADAF.

> Did PDAF change when going to PDS. It depends on how you look at it. I

They didn't change against fighters at all. AD** became a specialized fire
control, PDS became multi role when attached to an ADFC as you well know.

> The way anit-missile attacks are handled changed with the introduction

Hmm. This is where the confusion arises. Such craft are a proper idea in my
book. They are not line of battle and are not very good for anything other
than light patrol duties or combined punches against any larger vessel. Its
been a valid tactic since the creation of the torpedo (not the American Civil
War type, but the running type).