rules lawyer question

4 posts ยท Oct 17 1996 to Oct 18 1996

From: Joachim Heck - SunSoft <jheck@E...>

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:02:57 -0400

Subject: rules lawyer question

Cloaking devices mass "1 per 10 mass of ship". Does anyone here think that
should mean they mass 0 for ships of mass 9 or less? I didn't think so. I
didn't bother arguing the point with my
campaignmates - I just silently deleted a PDAF and amended the cost
appropriately, but I think the idea of a mass 2 cloaked scout with a C battery
and a PDAF is really neat. I'm just wondering whether there's a general
consensus on this or any similar rules which can result in zero masses or
costs in degenerate cases.

From: Rick Rutherford <rickr@s...>

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:51:26 -0400

Subject: Re: rules lawyer question

> On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

> Cloaking devices mass "1 per 10 mass of ship". Does anyone here

Sorry, when it comes to ANYTHING in Full Thrust, you round fractions up, even
to the point where 1.1 = 2!

From: Brian Lojeck <lojeck@r...>

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 16:58:53 -0400

Subject: Re: rules lawyer question

> On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

> Cloaking devices mass "1 per 10 mass of ship". Does anyone here

hell no! no matter how small the ship, the cloaking device still has some
material components that must be stored!

> I

of course you do... you'd be the one using them!

From: B Lin <lin@r...>

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:40:30 -0400

Subject: Re: rules lawyer question

> On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

> Cloaking devices mass "1 per 10 mass of ship". Does anyone here
The rule should probably read "for 1 for every 10 mass or fraction thereof."

Since a mass 15 ship should probably be required to use 2 mass for a cloak,
not just one. So it makes sense that ships of mass less than 10 should have to
commit one mass to the cloaking device.