Okay so I'm new and this question has probably been asked before. But it
wasn't in the FAQ.
I got into a bitter row with one of my friends over scatter packs. Upon both
of us reading the rules. One came (Kra'vank) to the conclusion that they were
treated just the same as other weapons. If you're shooting at a target with a
rail gun, then that fire control can also be used to shoot a scatter pack at
the same target. The other player (NAC) insisted that there should be a
seperate fire control for bot the rail guns and the scatter pack.
After the NAC player was taken to the cleaner quite quickly he insisted that
it must be his interpretation of the rules. To reduce the effectiveness of
what proved to be a devastating weapon.
Who is right?
Date sent: 7-OCT-1996 09:36:42
> Okay so I'm new and this question has probably been asked before. But
> I got into a bitter row with one of my friends over scatter packs.
> After the NAC player was taken to the cleaner quite quickly he insisted
> Who is right?
You are right as far as the rules go, but your friend is more right in so much
as, the way the rules are written, the Kra'Vak are unplayable. In the core FT
rules it states that any ship should be a balance of several factors.
Firepower, Protection, Maneuverability and Cost. The Kra'Vak do not obey this
rule. They have better weapons, better protection (armour is superior to the
equivilant level shields), better maneuverability and are cheaper to boot.
A lot of people seem not to care that the Kra'Vak are much more powerful,
considering it to be 'flavour', but personally I have always seen a problem
like this occuring.
The rules for Kra'Vak are, IMNSHO, unsuitable for play in anything other than
a pre planned GMed scenario. If FT were a competition game, you would have no
reason not to play Kra'Vak.
Try doubling the mass of all Kra'Vak only weapons (rail guns and scatter
packs) and you might bring them closer to the realms of playability.
> On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Adam Delafield wrote:
> A lot of people seem not to care that the Kra'Vak are much more
I heartily agree!
> The rules for Kra'Vak are, IMNSHO, unsuitable for play in anything
I don't remember what I got for scatterpacks, but I did one calculation
where all railguns should have mass = class+1 and cost = 6*class (ie, a
class 2 railgun would have 3 mass and cost 12).
I usually use an adaption of Ludo's beam rules, though, so it is probably not
as well balanced for the standard rules; but I think it would be fairly OK.
Together with increased drive costs for Kra'Vak drives
(...+50%? don't remember any longer... too long since I did any design
work) it seemed to balance pretty well for equal-points battles (which
_is_ a fairly good way to set up a one-off battle - if you just say
'bring all you've got' the biggest purse (or the fastest painter, depending on
the players <g>) will win!)
Regards,
-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
Message text written by Adam Delafield
"You are right as far as the rules go, but your friend is more right in so
much as, the way the rules are written, the Kra'Vak are unplayable. In the
core FT rules it states that any ship should be a balance of several factors.
Firepower, Protection, Maneuverability and Cost. The Kra'Vak do not obey this
rule. They have better weapons, better protection (armour is superior to the
equivilant level shields), better maneuverability and are cheaper to boot.
A lot of people seem not to care that the Kra'Vak are much more powerful,
considering it to be 'flavour', but personally I have always seen a problem
like this occuring."
--------------------- End Original Message --------------------
I agree with the above.
One way so (somewhat) limit Kra'Vak Scatterguns is to require the player to
note in the turn report if scatterguns are going to access a fire control, or
the
Anti-Fighter control system, for a given turn. This works best if ALL
the scatterguns must be used under this rule (bipole switch for the entire
Anti-Fighter system). I feel, if used, it should apply to the "use C
Beams as
PDAFs" rule also. Not play-tested enough to tell if it is suffecient.
But it is easy to implement.
-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
Message text written by Rob Paul
A passing thought: as most of us probably use the C-battery against
fighters/missiles idea, how about letting an ADAF add C-batteries, if
the
ship has them, to it's supporting anti-fighter fire. Say, up to 2
C-batteries per ADAF, at double points but no extra mass for the
batteries.
--------------------- End Original Message --------------------
Above is another good idea!