"Phaser Lock Starship Combat System Rules?" Topic
5 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Spaceship Gaming Message Board
Areas of InterestScience Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Mako11 | 15 Feb 2015 4:24 a.m. PST |
There hasn't been much activity on this Yahoo Group lately, since people moved over from the spammed Phaser Lock group, a few years ago. Thought I'd see if anyone is still interested in quick-play, starship gaming in the Star Trek universe, and are using these, or would like to discuss further rules mods, ship stats, etc.? The basic rules are available in the files section of this Yahoo Group, sometimes referred to as PL 1.0, plus a few ship stats too, so are worth checking out: link There's also another variant, a guy is using at conventions, which can be found here: link The PL 2.0 rules are a bit more complex, and apparently use cards and other visual items to aid the gaming. The author admits though, that they tend to complicate the work for the GM, given all the options, and I suspect, may slow things down a bit too. |
TheBeast | 16 Feb 2015 6:24 a.m. PST |
Never got around to giving it a go, so no help, though I sure was interested when I joined up. Simple as it was, I never got it in my head to the point of putting on table. Where are the second edition housed? I'm not seeing them on either File section. And, heck, compared to some groups I'm on, last July is 'recent' activity. ;->= Doug |
CorpCommander | 16 Feb 2015 12:14 p.m. PST |
Looks like an interesting concept – keeping it simple. The notes section points out what the author thinks is wrong and I think it would be easy to develop this further. |
Mako11 | 16 Feb 2015 7:59 p.m. PST |
2.0 is in the second link, which is a bit more complicated. |
TheBeast | 17 Feb 2015 7:52 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Mako11. Understood about the version creep, but 'more complicated' may have something that'll kickstart some of my 'little grey cells'. Breath-holding is contra-indicated, as-always. Doug Edit: And rightly so; I was there before… |
|