hiya,
>From: "Robert S. Dean" [email removed]
>Subject: (1429) More Blunders (sigh)
>
>More Blunders:
>
>Blunder #6: The second errata sheet notes that the disintegrator should be
>a more powerful weapon--however it also
>adjests the rules so that it only does
>surface damage, making it inferior to
>particle accelerators in two ways: PA's
>do surface and radiation damage, and
>there is no defense against them
>(Nuclear dampers defend against disintegrators.)
It also fails to increase the number of extra damage rolls/critical hits
based on UCP and ship hull size. Disintegrators ratings only go as
far as E, thus they get at most 5 extra damage rolls and can only get
automatic critical hits against small ships (I don't remember the sizes,
but quite a small ship avoids the automatic critical hits). A PA spinal
mount can easily have a rating of Q,R,S or T (and it doesn't require a TL
over 15!), these cause 15 extra damage rolls and will critical hit ships
of quite large size 100kT is critical hitted (yukky english there) by a
PA-T. Of course armour reduces things a lot (it require armour factor-100
or so to avoid these bonous crits from a Meson-T, which wasn't considered
legal until fighting ships came along :-)
Pauli
seeya
Paul Dale | Internet/CSnet: [email removed]
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet: [email removed]
Uni of Qld | JANET: [email removed]
Australia, 4067 | EAN: [email removed]
| UUCP: [email removed]
f4e6g4Qh4++ | JUNET: [email removed]
^^^^^^^^^^^ Did anybody spot the error in this on all my previous postings??