Dean, Brendan: Thanks.
Just to confirm Dean, (...as I have become confused between the archives and
your superb SSDs).
Ion Cannon should have a maximum of 3 hits from a single salvo - makes
sense (Or is this against a single craft from a single attacker?). These
hits force a D6 systems failure check against all NON-weapon/bay/hold
systems with 1-n being the failure result, where "n" is the number of
ION cannon hits actually scored.
As a straight map onto standard FT an Alternative is: one could roll sandard
failure dice for the CURRENT check with a DM of the number of hits
scored: a result of 7+ "number of tracks down" is a failure (exactly as
at
present for non-core systems). For example, if on the top damage track
and
having 2 ION cannon hits, the result of failure is 5+ (5+2 = 7). If
reaching hte end of that track, the result would merely be +1, as at
normal
(6+).
BTW Oerjan/Jon, is it worth expressing systems failures in a similar
fashion throughout the next version of FT? 7 required. D6+"number of
damage tracks" - 1 "IF Core System"
Thanks guys.
Tim Bancroft is:
> Ion Cannon should have a maximum of 3 hits from a single salvo - makes
That's the same thing. For ships' direct-fire weapons, "one salvo" (or
more appropriately in Full Thrust "one attack") consists of all the direct
fire from one single ship at one single target during one turn. A ship firing
at two targets during the turn makes two attacks, etc.
In Full Thrust, the proper term for this is "one attack" (defined on FB1
p.5, "Applying Damage"). Other games, eg. Starfire, use "one salvo" to mean
exactly the same thing which is probably why so many people (including me)
talk about "salvoes" in Full Thrust as well :-(
> These hits force a D6 systems failure check against all
Correct.
> As a straight map onto standard FT an Alternative is: one could roll
> normal (6+).
This is *not* a straight map, since it gives different results than Dean's
version for any target that has taken one or more threshold checks.
> BTW Oerjan/Jon, is it worth expressing systems failures in a similar
No. While it would shorten the rules' text somewhat, I think you'd be
surprised by the number of mathematically challenged players who'd have
serious difficulties getting the target number right. (I know I was surprised
by it!)
FWIW I'd prefer to adopt the Ion Cannon mechanic for the standard threshold
checks instead, so a roll equal to or less than the number of rows you've lost
is a failure (ie., if you've lost 1 hull row you only lose system to rolls of
'1', if you've lost 2 rows you lose systems to rolls of '2' or
less, etc.). Whether or not I manage to convince Jon about it remains to be
seen though :-/
Later,