SFB-type shields in FT

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Anyone following this thread? Still getting my head around it, but for
ST-themed play, without the whole energy allocation snarl, I like it so
far.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=330935

> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Trying to follow along. Much as I like Full Thrust, I'm still rather bemused
as to why go to so much trouble modifying the game when, say, Squadron Strike
is much more flexible.

cheers,

> On 02/01/2014 08:28, Hugh Fisher wrote:
I think you've sort of answered the question yourself. People _like_ FT.

It's simple, adaptable and fun. Converting it to <insert genre/series>
is a big part of what it's about, so naturally players try to adapt it to
their favourite games as well. As to why they go to so much trouble, well,
they're gamers; that's what they do! Squadron Strike may be more flexible, but
it's also more complex, not as well known, and a heck of a

lot of work to set up from my experience. This is not to disparage SS --

it's a good game -- but it doesn't have the fan- and player-bases that
FT has, and so someone wanting to play an SFB-like game with a ruleset
that they already own is more likely to do it with FT than SS because that's
what they know and probably own. The alternative is to buy another game, of
which there are plenty these days, but making the effort to adapt a game would
tend to indicate that you don't want the bother of buying and learning a new
set of rules.

Phil

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Phillip Atcliffe <atcliffe@ntlworld.com>wrote:

> On 02/01/2014 08:28, Hugh Fisher wrote:
I think you've sort of answered the question yourself. People _like_ FT.
> It's simple, adaptable and fun.

That's what attracted me to FT in the beginning. I came from the likes of SFB
so FT was refreshing. Using SFB a small task force battle would take
10+ hours (8 people sitting around a table with two ships per player).
The same battle using FT was, of course, much faster. Allowing us to play two
(or more) games in the same amount of time.

There is still a place for games that allow for highly detailed one on one
duels -- anyone have any pointers to newer rulesets that allow for such
games?

D.

I'm not for something this complex being 'the rule' in FT; I love fiddling,
and this is just that. Actually, there are parts of FT I'm for simplifying.

Wish you had said most anything other than SS; I've been so disappointed with
all Ad Astra games, and demos at cons, up til now, hard to imagine me trying
another. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me five times, what is wrong with
this picture?

It really has become a personal thing with Ken Burnside.

Doug

[quoted original message omitted]