--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "Glenn Wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
To: Stargrunt-Fullthrust@egroups.com
Subject: [Stargrunt-Fullthrust] DS 2 quirk
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:54:12 -0000
Message-ID: <8o1344+39ln@egroups.com>
Sitting at the dinner table after the kids were in bed, talking with
wife, fiddling with mid-tech DS2 vehicles designs...
Per DS2, with mid-tech power plants (HMT) you can only use MDC/HEL
weapons 1 size lower then vehicle size. Seems right.
Soooo, You can only use a size 4 HEL or MDC on a size 5 vehicle, etc.
That's okay.
BUT you can take a Size 4 vehicle with a HMT power source and stick a
turret mounted HEL/3 and a 'secondary' MDC/3.
I e-mailed Jon T. IIRC an example of a primary of one type and size
and a secondary of a different type and/or size (say a HKP/4 and a
MDC/3) and he said in such a mixed weapon case he thought both should
be able to fire similar to a 'in the rules' double turret (same weapon
types/sizes.) Both weapons would use their own range bands, etc. And
since that was my idea I was pleased to see he thought my idea while perhaps
'unusual' still within the spirit of the rules.
However, does it seem to violate the spirit of the rules (tech/motive
power/weaponry) to let the kind of example above (a Size 4 vehicle
witha HMT power source and stick a turret mounted HEL/3 and a
'secondary' MDC/3) work? If the HMT can't fire a HEL/4 or 5 why
should it be able to fire BOTH a HEL/3 AND a MDC/3?
While I will decide how I want to run the house rules for my games I really
would like some feedback from the list members on if this pushes the mixed
weapon turret example 'over the edge' of the spirit
of the rules. I have no problem with a DFFG/1 and a HVC/4 in a
turret (it's like putting a DFFG in lieu of an APSW IMO) but I begin to feel
uneasy with the situation mentioned above.
Where is that 'spirit' boundary?
Gracias.
Triphibious/Glenn
--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing
APR* and no annual fee! Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/14/_/675918/_/967053261/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-
Community email addresses:
Post message: Stargrunt-Fullthrust@onelist.com
Subscribe: Stargrunt-Fullthrust-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: Stargrunt-Fullthrust-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: Stargrunt-Fullthrust-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/Stargrunt-Fullthrust
--------- End forwarded message ----------
> However, does it seem to violate the spirit of the rules (tech/motive
How about each additional weapon with power considerations has to go down a
size.
So you would now only be allowed say a HEL/3 but the MDC would have to
come down to a 2.
Or another method would be to say the energy capacity is 3 (one less than
vehicle size)
therefore all you could have is a HEL/2 and MDC/1 total of 3 energy
used.
Sound reasonable?
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:08:56 +0100 () Jeremey Claridge
> <jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk> writes:
Sounds pretty reasonable.
> Or another method would be to say the energy capacity is 3 (one less
A little strict but not patently unfair to the spirit of the rules.
> Sound reasonable?
Yes, it does. I might not worry since experienced (I have yet to play!!??!)
players suggest it may not be 'optimal' anyway. But then I wanted this force
to match the culture I designed for it not necessarily be the best 'winning'
design strategy (not that I want a kludgy certain to lose one but one with a
few quirks and satisfy my 'style' button and
reasonable quality/quantity will do.)
So does anybody use DS2 with a different background then the 'canned' one? I
like it but with I have an objective to merge it with my old Starguard
campaign world (Cotu) to make the battles more then
skirmishes/platoon (-) actions.
Gracias.
> Glenn wrote:
I haven't played it yet, but I have every intention of eventually using it to
supplement my FT pseudo-campaigns. I find myself thinking that I might
adapt
it slightly for a BattleTech-like setup, where Infantry Walkers can get
dropped from orbit alongside bulkier Combat Walkers in shuttle exoskeletons.
It might or might not involve a house rule tweak to the p.43 rules on orbital
drops, depending on how much extra metal you've got to have around a Combat
Walker for it to constitute an "Assault Lander".
There's quite a few sci-fi setups that I wouldn't mind mixing with it,
ultimately. From the AT-ATs in Star Wars to the mecha in
BattleTech/anime
to hovertanks... I could have some fun with this.:)
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT) stiltman@teleport.com writes:
This is beginning to sound like a lead in to the FT Modular ship thread
at gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU but it has merits. How would you dump the
exoskeleton after landing - explosive bolts idea? Since Combat Walkers
are larger then "Very Large' vehicles this would practically be a 'disposable'
ship situation.
> It might or might not involve a house rule tweak to the p.43 rules on
I think it would be more along the lines of a Dropship.
Unless you went to Mega-size strap-on 'reverse JATO' packs.
> There's quite a few sci-fi setups that I wouldn't mind mixing with it,
I am more prone to try and adapt it to the Hostile Contact rules that brought
FGU's original Space Marines into Starguard.
Let's see that would be a DS2 adaptation of a Starguard adaptation of Space
Marines... Talk about Mutations....
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Actually, resistance is everything. 8^)
Gracias.