From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
> We're thinking "master mould in next couple of weeks, in full
And these would be what sizes? Hopefully: Sahaabah CL (mass 54) Jibril CH
(mass 74) Hattin CH (mass 90) My proposed specs are as follows:
Sahaabah (Companions) CL mass 54, NPV 185 MD 6, no FTL 14 hull 4433 3 armor 3
PDS 2 FCS 4 B2 2 SMR These are named for the companions of the Prophet (on
whom be peace), particularly those who were around him during the battle of
Badr and other important events. The class's lead ship is Miqdad ibn al Aswad.
Jibril CH Mass 74 NPV 268 MD 4, FTL 18 hull 5544 4 armor Screen 2
4 PDS + 1 ADFC
2 FCS
Sensor-E
7 B2 (2 x F/FS/AS, 2 x AP/FP/F, 3 FP/F/FS)
Other weapons combinations are possible, of course--eg drop 3 B2 and
add 4 PDS + 1 ADFC for a CH-E, or drop one B2 in favor of 2 B1
Named after angels
> From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
Finished and almost ready for moulding, we have:
Islamics: Patrol cruiser, heavy cruiser and big carrier.
Japanese: Destroyer
UNSC:
Escort carrier (CH-sized carrier for 2 fighter groups)
NAC:
2 new fighter types, looking VERY SLIGHTLY like X and Y wings..... ;-)
Strike Corvette (a biggish strikeboat, probably FTL capable)
Plus another new DD, which at present doesn't have a home - but maybe
FCT......
To follow: another few IF and UNSC, lots more Japs, FCT and also Israelis!
Availability on all these is provisional on them surviving the master
moulding!
Thanks for the Islamic suggestions, especially the class names. I have to say
I'm personally not keen on the asymmetric designs, especially as the models
are symmetrical, but interesting nonetheless!
Jon (GZG)
Hopefully:
> Sahaabah CL (mass 54)
When will you have book designs for the UN? My philosophy for them was screen
1, lots of beams, fairly tough, decent air defense.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/un.jpg)
but I'd like to have book designs because we occasionally play book games.
Whatever you do though, I recommend when you do come up with book SSDs you
give them more air defense than book ships typically have.
Maybe you could put out a few SSDs provisionally so we could playtest them and
so we could see where you're going with the ships.
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
***
Thanks for the Islamic suggestions, especially the class names. I have to say
I'm personally not keen on the asymmetric designs, especially as the models
are symmetrical, but interesting nonetheless!
***
I'd suggest he offer you names for the ships-in-class you can use for
whatever you come up with for 'standard' load outs, and he can keep his names
for the asym variants, though a mention in the notes of such variants
would be a nice tip-o-the-hat. ;->=
I know I'd like to try the asym in heat of battle.
The_Beast
> >From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
Unless I grabbed the wrong file, these are all symmetrical; I redesigned the
IF ships to be compatible with the first minis that came out (eg the Said al
Islam BB has a B4 (or 2xB3) in the forward arc to fit that pointy thing on the
bow, plus some SMR to match what I assume are tubes on the sides, just ahead
of the wings). I still like the asymetrical designs, but we'll either have to
relegate those to New Israeli (since Noam likes them too, when last I heard)
or Alarishi (where I can do what I please, since I don't expect anyone to be
neurotic enough to sculpt them).
Die hard "asymetric IF" fans could hack off one wing from each ship, but I'm
not *that* enthusiastic about it.
From: <devans@uneb.edu>
> I'd suggest he offer you names for the ships-in-class you can use for
Or if Jon is truly bored, he could sculpt a single asym cruiser ("experimental
design in response to New Israeli" yadda yadda) for inclusion in the fleet..
> Islamics:
For the Carrier, how about a class name: Makkah (Mecca) for the CVA, with
Dimashq (Damascus) for the forthcoming CVL? Saudi Arabia already uses Makkah
as a ship name and, if we make it a CVA, hopefully the captain will be allowed
to hang back and not risk his ship.
I don't have any designs for a CVA because I personally don't much use
fighters, but the IF certainly would--big and fast, not quite eggshells,
stuffed with fighters and missiles, with a distinct aversion to getting
within beam range. (Hey, the carrier can always FTL out--the pilots are
expendable, er, that is, glorious Islamic martyrs headed for Paradise, of
course. We'll need "kamikaze" rules here).
The Curmudgeonly Beast said:
> I'd suggest he offer you names for the ships-in-class you can use for
We had a test battle to try out some of Noam's experimental systems; I had
some asymetrical designs with stealth, the other player had faster ships.
One of the most interesting battles I've had--I really had to pay
attention to turning and rotating, while trying to keep in the margin where I
had him in range while staying outside his range (reduced by stealth).
It would have been even better if I'd won... :-)
BTW Noam, if you have the records for that battle handy, I'd like copies
***
The Curmudgeonly Beast said:
***
Especially as the curmudgeon refers to a 'crusty, old man' who now apologizes
for not noticing the designs you had up were NOT asym.
Laserlight sez:
***
We had a test battle to try out some of Noam's experimental systems; I had
some asymetrical designs with stealth, the other player had faster ships.
One of the most interesting battles I've had--I really had to pay
attention to turning and rotating, while trying to keep in the margin where I
had him in range while staying outside his range (reduced by stealth).
***
Oooo... Sounds like it would be a GREAT AAR! If you get the records from Noam,
please do give one a go; if not, any idea of the distribution of ships(the
designs you've posted before, right?) and where those ships fit into your
battle plan would be of interest.
I always envisioned fast flank riders that would swing across the front, then
back the other side, before TOO damaged, to again cover the flanks. Of course,
no idea if FT's movement system would work, the way it didn't, too well, for
the Thatch Weave.
***
It would have been even better if I'd won... :-)
***
Well, a well-fought loss is better than a dull win, but all other things
being equal... ;->=
***
BTW Noam, if you have the records for that battle handy, I'd like copies
***
The_Beast spake:
> Oooo... Sounds like it would be a GREAT AAR! If you get the records
These were Noam-Built (tm) ships, I had nothing to do with the design
(except, possibly, having brought up the idea of asymmetrical in the first
place--I don't recall who was first to mention it). IIRC they were
speed 4,
whereas the pirates I was facing were speed 5-6.
My IF designs were normally MD6 and FP oriented; however, since Jon made the
models symmetric, I've reworked the designs so they're no longer lopsided.
Most of them below CH are still MD 6 (or higher), though, and I'll use the
asymmetrics for someone else.
> ***
Actually I think that was my fault in the first place. When I skimmed through
the designs as posted, I don't think my brain was fully in gear and I was sure
a couple of them had asym gun mounts. Having checked back, I
don't know why I thought that, 'cos they haven't. :-/
> >The Curmudgeonly Beast said:
St^3 Jon said
> Actually I think that was my fault in the first place. When I skimmed
Well, of course, it's because you're preoccupied with BDS, FB3, FT3, FMASk,
and so forth.....right?
In message <000f01c10560$3c04a060$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
> "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET> wrote:
[snip]
> My IF designs were normally MD6 and FP oriented; however, since Jon
Well, Jon _could_ bring out a range of asymmetric ships (either human or
a new alien race - maybe the not-streib ;-)
On of my friends first custom designs when I introduced him to FT was a
highly asymmetric Pulse-Torpedo gunship.
> --- Chris DeBoe <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET> wrote:
...
> Well, of course, it's because you're preoccupied
Frankly, I think a lot of the pressure for a new rules compilation would be
off if there was a reliable, growing, compilation of answers to questions on
the current rules which had the force of a tournament ruling located on the
GZG site.
I know there's a FAQ, but it needs to be more extensive and it needs to grow
as questions are asked. It's one thing to have a reasonable answer, but it
would avoid quarrels if there was an official rules interpretation you could
go look at to distinguish between multiple
reasonable answers ;-).
Just by way of example, our latest small dispute was over dogfight rules
between fighters. It looks to me as if single dogfights are simultaneous,
while fights with 3 or more squadrons are initiative based. Some in our group
disagree, interpreting the word multiple to mean 2 or more. However sure you
might be of your opinion, there's no way to really be absolutely sure. But if
there was a web site with a constantly growing list of official rules
interpretations, the argument could be ended by one quick click on the
internet.
It seems to me that something like this could be done by GZG a little at a
time. We could come up with a mark you could put on a message, like
[RI] for Request Interpretation. Someone could
compile them for Jon, and he could, at his convenience, give a rules
interpretation and select which ones go into the FAQ. Jon could designate
someone to help, but if the rules interpretations were to be official, they
would have to at least be looked at by someone qualified to make tournament
rulings. We could even come
up with a message format -- what to include:
[RI] [FT] Descriptive Title
Description: .......
Rules that seem to apply:.....
GZG supplies the Answer along with maybe an example.
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea? I'm not trying to make work for Jon,
but there are places in the rules where there is a lot of room for
disagreement (especially in the fragmented fighter rules).
***
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea? I'm not trying to make work for Jon,
but there are places in the rules where there is a lot of room for
disagreement (especially in the fragmented fighter rules).
***
I think it a poor idea.
The_Beast
***
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea? I'm not trying to make work for Jon,
but there are places in the rules where there is a lot of room for
disagreement (especially in the fragmented fighter rules).
***
While suggestions of resolving conflicts has a nice sound, Jon has from the
beginning suggested that we work these things out ourselves. Now, I've
admitted I've not been doing a lot of FT of recent, but if my regular mates
suggested to me that Multiple Group Dogfights means One-on-One
Dogfights, I'd be deciding I didn't need to playing that often anyway.
Now, there's nothing to stop them from making ALL dogfights initiative based.
They're free to so play if they wish; they just have to get you to agree. Not
Jon.
I'd much rather he'd be delivering a playtest copy of BDS for the list to
attempt to make as bulletproof as possible. He doesn't need to be constantly
wording the meaning of 'is'.
We can let US presidents do that.
However, it's Jon's call.
The_Beast
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:34:00 -0500 devans@uneb.edu writes:
Back to the meaning of 'is" I mean "multiple" <grin> but I second this logical
thought.
Most of us are most of the time able to work these things out.
Now, I'm not ready to run a FT game with fighters at a national Con yet
but this reminds me that I should have a pre-printed set of 'house
rules' and interpretations of areas where I think there needs to be a
pre-determined guideline in the local con games I have started running
last year (so far only about one handful.) But if all else fails, I am the GM
and have final say (I just need to try and be as accurate as I can be and then
it's "Play on!"
> Now, there's nothing to stop them from making ALL dogfights initiative
It's an open game format - if it leads to unbalanced or abusive play
then the 'adults' get together and make changes as necessary, right?
> I'd much rather he'd be delivering a playtest copy of BDS for the list
Agree in principle although I am a DS2 freak first and foremost followed by FT
but no interest in SG2 (I use Starguard when I want to get ambushed
successfully.)
> We can let US presidents do that.
Hopefully never again but I have been feverish lately... That may account for
the optimism.
> However, it's Jon's call.
Concur - let Jon game test and make the rules as good as reason and
imagination allow with hopefully no glaring errors and then let the
participants work it out.
Gracias,
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:54:09 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
Cold, but that kind of therapy has been known to work - in more ways
then one! <grin>
> Regards,
Gracias,
> >You have just volunteered for the job. Good luck :-)
Let's define what you (and not we) have volunteered for:
a. note all rule application questions
b. keeping track of the discussions (what, about 50-75 e-mails a day?
not counting the test list) c. keeping track of the Lists' conclusions, if
any, and unanimity of decisions, again if any d. collating and editing
questions for clarity e. presenting them to Jon (and perhaps back to the List)
f. waiting while Jon gets out of a sculting mood and into a Ruling
Arbitratioin mood g. incurring the wrath of those listers who'd rather get
their Islamic Fed ships **now**, rather than have you interrupt Jon and
perhaps break his sculpting mood (okay, some of the listers would rather see
Bugs Don't Surf, or FB3, or FT3, or FMASk, or DS3--but I'm interested
in the Islamic Fed ships, and I can make a business trip to whatever
city you live in--my accounting manager was just telling me last week
that I need to spend $2000/month on travel)
h. nailing down Jon's answer (ie not taking "well, do it any way you like,
it's your game" for an answer) i. collating, formatting and posting the
replies j. receiving the List's response to the posting and making any
corrections needed (ie cycle a-i again)
k. maintain and move the web site as needed
--------- or -----------
you can just take as gospel Jon's dictum: "Play the game, not the rules."
> I know there's a FAQ, but it needs to be more
It would help more if our group didn't have the personalities it has.
Or for that matter the investment of a Dictionary.
> Just by way of example, our latest small dispute was
www.dict.org One click. Search on the word multiple.
Or a dictionary... flip a few pages, read... But we've had that discusion
David, before.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Multiple (adj): 1: consisting of, including, or involving more than one
(To those wondering, no I was not there, not involved in the discussion until
now, and have no percentage either way)
> What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea? I'm not
So why does Jon need to be involved? Frankly, you only need to have someone
people can agree on to give a ruling. I'd suggest Scott or Aimee, between the
two, they're almost always at TWR during FT times, they're both well balanced,
well thought, respected people who aren't looking for thier own gain but
instead a fair and balanced game as they can see it.
The most important characteristic though is that they both tend to keep an
open mind, and listen to both sides.
And while I typically disagree with Aimee's conclusions, its almost always a
matter of philosophy or vision of the game not in logic or personal gain.
True, neither of them know the rules by rote, but neither do I...
Rand()
> Back to the meaning of 'is" I mean "multiple" <grin> but I second this
Bah, I won't even comment on that ex-(thank the stars)-president. Not
that we got a better one in the deal, mind you...
> Most of us are most of the time able to work these things out.
You don't know this group well...
> It's an open game format - if it leads to unbalanced or abusive play
Again you don't know this group well... There's several types of
con-birds
around... Red-breasted rules lawyers, Pigeon power gamers (Me, or so I'm
told), etc...
Unfortunately, like most children, we tend to want to go running to Mommy and
Daddy to solve our fights... Well, ok, really we just want them to
side with us so we get to stick our tongues out and go "NAYH-NAYH"
Ok, we're not that bad, but it can seem that way. I admit, I haven't been
around in a while, but it sure sounds like things haven't changed.
Makes life hell for those people that just want to have fun, who are more than
willing to be perfectly reasonable, but who don't want to get screwed out of
having fun.
> Hopefully never again but I have been feverish lately... That may
Cynicism is best, no surprises.
> Concur - let Jon game test and make the rules as good as reason and
I'd _pay_ to get FB/FT3! Oh wait, I'm gonna have to do that anyway...
;)
Rand()
> You have just volunteered for the job. Good luck :-)
Oh dear god, you know not what you say!
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
...
> Concur - let Jon game test and make the rules as
Sounds good to me. Why not publish what Jon's playtest playtest group did.
That would probably solve the problem.
Yes any group will change the rules they decide to change, but why not start
out with the rules as they are in the book and THEN change them if they 're
broken?
Um...
While I agree with you completely on what was volunteered for, might I point
out that it wasn't mean that was volunteered, or volunteering (Thank you, I
have enough military friends to know better than to volunteer), rather David
Griffon...
And my comment was, you really didn't know what you were getting us into by
volunteering him for that.
> Laserlight wrote:
> > >You have just volunteered for the job. Good luck :-)
More news on the new ships......
We got the first master mould done yesterday - and a couple of
production moulds today.
Bad news is the IF carrier needs some re-working on one of its major
components, and will be another couple of weeks yet.
Good news is that the IF cruisers both came out well in pre-production,
and
should be production-moulded and available in a week or so. Ditto for
the new NAC fighters (that really don't look much like X and Y wings at all,
no sirree...) and the NAC Lancer (fast strike corvette).
Provisional codes/prices will be:
FT1007 Islamic Patrol Cruiser 2.50 UKP FT1008 Islamic Heavy Cruiser 3.00 UKP
and eventually: FT1013 Islamic Carrier 10.00 UKP (provisionally)
FT101B NAC new light fighter (6) 1.00 UKP FT121B NAC new heavy fighter (6)
1.00 UKP FT123 NAC Lancer (3) 2.00 UKP
BETTER news is that the Japanese DD, the "unallocated" (but probably FCT)
DD, and the UNSC Escort Carrier are now production-moulded and
officially available!!
Codes/prices are:
FT1305 Japanese Soyokaze class DD (2) 2.50 UKP
FT1405 Free CalTex (?) DD (2) 2.50 UKP
FT1117 UNSC Escort Carrier (CVE) 4.00 UKP
I'll try to get some photos of them taken this weekend, and put up somewhere
ASAP.
Oh, and for any of you who have NAC forces in 25mm for SGII, we've now got
five new NAC Marine figures out - all with L7A3 rifle, poses are:
standing
firing, kneeling firing, charging hip-firing, running hip-firing, and
prone. At the moment they're all "B" suffix variants, with visors raised
-
"A" versions with closed visors to follow.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
[...]
> Oh, and for any of you who have NAC forces in 25mm for SGII, we've now
standing
> firing, kneeling firing, charging hip-firing, running hip-firing, and
Any plans for 15mm???? :-)
Mk
> We got the first master mould done yesterday - and a couple of
I'll take three of each IF cruiser, and one carrier. Let me know when the
carrier's ready, I may get some DS2 figs to add to the package (don't dwell on
"why" since I haven't painted the last batch yet). I'll confirm details later,
just wanted to get a shot at the first production copies...
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
standing
> firing, kneeling firing, charging hip-firing, running hip-firing, and
SOMEBODY had to, so I guess it might as well be you, Indy... ;-)
> We got the first master mould done yesterday - and a couple of
And that's without even seeing them - who says you need photos to sell
models....? <WINK>
Once the problems with the carrier are fixed and they're all
production-moulded, I'll post the news to the list...
> At 7:51 PM +0100 7/6/01, Ground Zero Games wrote:
[snip] really good news about new NAC stuff!
> >Any plans for 15mm???? :-)
Jon, I'm happy with 25mm thank you for the prone figs!
In message <v03130303b76bcb45280a@[212.1.148.236]>, Ground Zero Games writes:
> >
I was saving up for a good BDS dig, myself.;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Oh, and for any of you who have NAC forces in 25mm for SGII, we've now
standing
> firing, kneeling firing, charging hip-firing, running hip-firing, and
I'd like one of each of these., Jon. I think you still have all the relevant
CC & address info?
Cheers,
> At 9:13 PM +0200 7/7/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Ok, dumb question. How do us yanks order things like this from Jon in the UK?
Ryan puzzled:
> Ok, dumb question. How do us yanks order things like this from Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 9:13 PM +0200 7/7/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Same way us dutch folks do oit; by credit card, and pay the P&P?
Cheers,