optional beam systems in S&P

[katadder]

hey guys, all 3 optional beam systems have made S&P and by the sounds of it will make P&P too as optional rules

 

[Da Boss]

jolly good

although Beam Option B (TBS) reads a little strangely - shouldn't it be

"re-roll on this table after each 5 or 6 rolled, continue to do so until no 5 or 6s are scored" :?:

(or something similar?)

Although I do recall being confused by its first incarantion as well

 

[Burger]

Yes TBS has typos, assuming that option B is meant to be TBS rather than "MBS"! As written it ruins the averages, which is one thing that all the new beam mechanics were very careful NOT to do.

Great to see the optional beam rules in and my name in print :lol:

Though I have to say if Charlie had let me write it rather than Matt, it would have been a much better article!!! Makes me wonder why I was rejected, but the idea was put in anyway...

The article really doesn't do the beam rules justice either (IMO). It basically states, here is a rule that makes the game less exciting. Nothing to indicate why some of us believe the rule is necessary or statistics to validate the fact that the new rules do not change the average power of the beams. I don't believe that anyone not familiar with the forum threads, would even bother to read the article other than a brief look.

 

[Clanger]

Blink and you miss the article.

 

[Da Boss]

Yes TBS has typos, assuming that option B is meant to be TBS rather than "MBS"! As written it ruins the averages, which is one thing that all the new beam mechanics were very careful NOT to do.

Great to see the optional beam rules in and my name in print :lol:

Though I have to say if Charlie had let me write it rather than Matt, it would have been a much better article!!! Makes me wonder why I was rejected, but the idea was put in anyway...

The article really doesn't do the beam rules justice either (IMO). It basically states, here is a rule that makes the game less exciting. Nothing to indicate why some of us believe the rule is necessary or statistics to validate the fact that the new rules do not change the average power of the beams. I don't believe that anyone not familiar with the forum threads, would even bother to read the article other than a brief look.

agreed - its nice to have it as a official option but its a shame that your article was not used - I think even my very rough draft House Rules explains it more clearly.

 

[Chernobyl]

would be nice if the new rules are writen by someone unfamiliar with them. By that I mean, if you're already familiar with them you might leave out something without realising its important.

 

[Ripple]

Also might help if you use someone who actually believes in them. Basic problem with getting a clear article if the author doesn't think the subject is warranted. But yeah, at least reviewed by someone unfamiliar.

Ripple

 

[Tolwyn]

It would be great if the new rules would be in part more logical and predictable as the actual B5 rules.