Arclight Weapons

Use it to heighten the drama. A lucky blow severs the right arm servo, paralysing the wearer's arm but not harming it. Another blow disables the comm unit's transceiver, making it impossible to communicate with the rest of his team.

To the rest of the team, their colleague's IFF pinger suddenly goes dark - and even the ship's medic notes that his life signals, fed by the suit, go abruptly dark ...

Oh, about the calling these weapons "stupid." In what context? We're talking about a game where player characters gain access to man-portable guns that fire a nuclear fusion blast, or which disintegrate matter to raw subatomic particles.

In a game where handheld weapons of ludicrous uberdeath are coveted, arclight melee weapons and chaindrive swiords actually seem ... plausible by comparison.
 
Can we please not get into one of those "what is TravellerTM arguments? That's soooo old ... :roll:

I haven't got the book in question (unfortunately) (yet), but are arclight weapons really that destructive? Surely armour should still protect to the same level as for anything else - it's just that the weapon is so much more destructive that it still does lots of damage on the other side. Even a nuclear warhead is mitigated by armour - instead of 10gadzillion points of damage, take 10gadzillionD6 minus five. Have I got the wrong end of the stick completely?

Infojunky said:
I am getting to the point where I think a "design" system in a game is a defect of game design, I would much prefer a general set of explicit guidelines and then wing it.
Click to expand...
I love that system! :wink:
 
Mongoose Steele said:
As always, the CSC is a generic Trav book - which means you get to take from it what you need. If somebody wants to run a 40k or Star Wars Trav game, they now have the tools to do it. That is what the book was intended to do; not force people to add things to their sacrosanct worlds and gaming tables.
Click to expand...

If you give people a choice then you also have to give them the information they need in order to make it. A generic book should only contain generic items; non-generic items should be restricted to sourcebooks, or at least clearly marked. By mixing everything up together you risk confusing new players. If they *want* a certain thing in their game, fine, but at the same time people who want to run, say, a pure OTU (or W40k) game need to know what's appropriate.
 
When I first read about the Arc-Field weapons, my first thought was "FINALLY, a reason why Marines get the Melee (Blade) skill automatically!"

Of course this is not OTU, this is ATU.

Also, I would use the nice design upgrade sections of CSC to incorporate Arc-Field Shield technology into Battle Dress as soon as the TL would allow it. That only makes sense.

If you are going to allow for these weapons, then you need to allow for the defenses being more widespread as well.
 
the CSC is generic, by definition of the writer, and it explicitly states that anything in here is optional, in fact everything barring the main book, and indeed huge swathes of that tome... are optional!!!

players wont be confussed. if a player asked me... oooh can i have an arclight sword.. i would say no, as the GM i decide whats in there.

unless i want unarmoured psionic ninjas with electric swords running around. and if i do i have the stuff to do it.

Chef
 
lastbesthope said:
However, we are looking to recruit some ninjas free from bodily odour, perhaps I can recommend a good anti-perspirant.

:lol:

LBH
Click to expand...
A number of years ago, one convention here in the US got small bars of soap for the goodie-bags. They put a sticker on each "Use Daily with water, rub all over body until clean then rinse" (or something like that).

COmbine that with a good anti-persperant and your set
 
Gotta love forums...where else can one go from discussing arclight weapons to discussing science fiction versus science fantasy or "what is Traveller", to smelly uber-ninjas... :roll:

Reborn the Fallen is in my campaign BTW and I must thank everyone for ideas on this issue, but I do hope I don't suddenly have a smelly/dirty ninja with the Uber-arclight weapon of Doom sneaking into my Traveller Universe or I will have to go Monty-Python on some arses... :P
 
I haven't got the book in question (unfortunately) (yet), but are arclight weapons really that destructive? Surely armour should still protect to the same level as for anything else - it's just that the weapon is so much more destructive that it still does lots of damage on the other side. Even a nuclear warhead is mitigated by armour - instead of 10gadzillion points of damage, take 10gadzillionD6 minus five. Have I got the wrong end of the stick completely?
Click to expand...

But the problem is that if I take 10GadzillionD6 damage, my character is dead, dead, dead. And in this case, I'm not

Imagine a character being stabbed in the thigh by a 4" arclight dagger. The result is a nasty leg-wound that will be (localised burns aside) functionally identical to a normal knife wound. That could kill you, but probably not instantly if it missed the artery, and it's ultimately nothing a torniquet couldn't temporarily treat. The practicalities of the length and width of the blade relative to the width of the leg means severing the limb is unlikely unless you work at it - a simple punch-stab won't do it.

So the organic damage is exactly the same as a normal knife. The difference is that armour won't slow it down - unless the armour is physically 3" thick that the blade hilt is stopped at a point where the tip only goes 1" into your leg.

It's precisely because an arclight blade isn't that destructive - in a mass-area-devastation sense, anyway - that they need a rule like that; you could in theory destroy a even a high TL tank with one but it'd be like dismembering a contemporary car with a tin-opener; possible but it'll take far too much effort to achieve anything practicable.


To bring the topic back on track however, arclight weaponry should damage (or destroy) any non-arc weapon that attempts to parry it.
Click to expand...
I'd agree; a milimetre-wide, six-inch long cut through armour plate won't significantly degrade the armour's protection from future hits. A similar cut completely bisecting the blade of a sword means the end of the sword falls off.

Note that the arc-light weapon will still have inertia and - if nothing else - you can attack the handgrip and the hand holding it. So if a blade is destroyed whilst parrying an arclight weapon, there's no reason that the parry itself would not be successful. Yes, it cost you your sword, but you still have a neck. Consider it a fair trade. Now run.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
High Guard Smaller Weapons
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
6K
Condottiere
C
A
Deflector Screens vs Missiles
Replies
7
Views
586
MasterGwydion
M
L
Crystal Shard Weapons, Return of the Splinter Weapon (Sort of)
Replies
6
Views
545
Lyrell'e
L
MongooseMatt
[Traveller Battlefield Dev] Designer Observations
Replies
0
Views
796
MongooseMatt
MongooseMatt
M
Critical Hits with multiple locations/systems
2
Replies
29
Views
788
Sigtrygg
Sigtrygg
Back
Top