Ask MongooseMatt ANYTHING!!!

[Terry Mixon]

Okay, not really anything, but when we post questions about the rules or potential typos in the feedback area, we often don't receive a response, so I'm creating this thread in the hopes of getting some response to questions we have, even if it is "we're looking at that" or some such.

I'll kick this off with a question I posted a few days ago. The emergency low berths in High Guard 2022 Update are listed at MC1 a pop. Seems real pricy since Mongoose 1e and all the previous versions of Traveller we checked had it being KCr100. In Mongoose 1e, it was listed as MCr.1 and we suspect a typo. Can we get some clartity on that so we can update the starship build sheet to reflect what we suspect if we're right? Thanks.

Also, allow me to suggest that adding KCr, BCr (or GCr to please @Geir), and TCr to your repertoire would be really helpful and would minimize the complaints about not having comma separation in your big numbers, too.

And sorry for all the wild AMA questions you're about to get @MongooseMatt.

 

[actionman]

Ars Magica

Excellent game.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I posted this elsewhere, but never got an answer, so I’m bringing this here, @MongooseMatt.

High Guard 22 has this about spinal mounts. The text implies no cap, but the chart only goes to +3. Can we get a call on what the rule means. Is it capped or open-ended? @Arkathan and I would like to know.

Also, they get more expansive as the TL goes up? That seems to be the reverse of how TL affects everything cost wise. Shouldn’t they go down in cost as the technology matures?

 

[hopsnbaer]

I posted this elsewhere, but never got an answer, so I’m bringing this here, @MongooseMatt.

High Guard 22 has this about spinal mounts. The text implies no cap, but the chart only goes to +3. Can we get a call on what the rule means. Is it capped or open-ended? @Arkathan and I would like to know.

Also, they get more expansive as the TL goes up? That seems to be the reverse of how TL affects everything cost wise. Shouldn’t they go down in cost as the technology matures?

Wouldn't that be covered under Altering Tech levels in High Guard on page 70? None of the advanced tech goes above +3

 

[Condottiere]

I kinda suspect that the fear is, someone would figure out an overpowered configuration.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Wouldn't that be covered under Altering Tech levels in High Guard on page 70? None of the advanced tech goes above +3

View attachment 6739

Perhaps. I'm just asking to be sure.

EDIT: Though to point out, the cost structure and tonnage is different and there are no advantages. These seem like two different things.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I kinda suspect that the fear is, someone would figure out an overpowered configuration.

Could be.

 

[hopsnbaer]

Perhaps. I'm just asking to be sure.

EDIT: Though to point out, the cost structure and tonnage is different and there are no advantages. These seem like two different things.

To me the tech table implies to me that there is Advanced. Very Advanced, and High Technology. After that reducing cost might be the way to go. What advantages would you put on a bay besides cost and size? I have not thought too much about it. I don't like big ships except for Narrative.

 

[Terry Mixon]

To me the tech table implies to me that there is Advanced. Very Advanced, and High Technology. After that reducing cost might be the way to go. What advantages would you put on a bay besides cost and size? I have not thought too much about it. I don't like big ships except for Narrative.

Me, either. I was building a ship for someone else when this cropped up.

 

[MongooseMatt]

As written, capped, but a specific universe might extend the table...

 

[Condottiere]

Lateral and vertical.

Which, ironically, I'm going to use one specific example, that would explain one of our Schrodinger's bugbears.

Gravitational lifters may or may not be part of an installed manoeuvre drive on a spacecraft.

Make them a separate drive, that like high burn thrusters, can function in conjunction with co installed drives.

Difference is directional, and that you can discriminate with three disadvantages, balanced with three advantages, specifically seventy five energy efficient.

 

[Terry Mixon]

As written, capped, but a specific universe might extend the table...

Thanks. Now @Arkathan can get that in his spreadsheet.

 

[Arkathan]

Thanks. Now @Arkathan can get that in his spreadsheet.

In there as Reduced Size x1, -x2 and -x3

 

[Terry Mixon]

In there as Reduced Size x1, -x2 and -x3

Those are advantages, not the intrinsic size reduction simply because of tech level. And the cost changes, of course. According to this, it is not user selectable but part and party to the tech level automatically.

 

[Arkathan]

Those are advantages, not the intrinsic size reduction simply because of tech level. And the cost changes, of course. According to this, it is not user selectable but part and party to the tech level automatically.

RAW, are any other advantages allowed for Spinal Mounts?
Edit:
HG22 pg 71
WEAPON AND SCREEN ADVANTAGES
Referees might want to restrict the use of these rules
with spinal mount weapons, as they already have their
own table for varying Tech Levels.

This tells me that the other table is for Spinal advantages, and that including the others is GM optional.

 

[Terry Mixon]

RAW, are any other advantages allowed for Spinal Mounts?
Edit:
HG22 pg 71
WEAPON AND SCREEN ADVANTAGES
Referees might want to restrict the use of these rules
with spinal mount weapons, as they already have their
own table for varying Tech Levels.

This tells me that the other table is for Spinal advantages, and that including the others is GM optional.

All I'm saying is that whatever you call this, it applies without needing to select anything. You don't choose to lower the mass for this, the mass reduction shouldn't need to select a drop down. It should be autocaluclated, as should the cost changes for tech level. Perhaps remove the selection for advantages for spinal mounts and they only get the automatically applied ones. Or remove the size and cost advantages and autocalulate them.

 

[Arkathan]

All I'm saying is that whatever you call this, it applies without needing to select anything. You don't choose to lower the mass for this, the mass reduction shouldn't need to select a drop down. It should be autocaluclated, as should the cost changes for tech level. Perhaps remove the selection for advantages for spinal mounts and they only get the automatically applied ones. Or remove the size and cost advantages and autocalulate them.

At the time I made that page, that was the only way to accommodate both the warning against using other mods and the outlier allowing their use (considering my limited skillset as I was learning that part of EXCEL by doing).
If the GM chooses to ignore the other mods, the count is irrelevant, and if they DO choose all mods, then the reduction table in the spinal mount section should not be free (as in two mods for the TL of one). If they don't want either set of mods, making it manual solves that need as well.

I cannot imagine that a polity could not build a spinal mount at a lower tech to avoid an automatic price increase.

I can probably include your suggestion as a toggle, that would block the other mods while applying automatically.

 

[Terry Mixon]

At the time I made that page, that was the only way to accommodate both the warning against using other mods and the outlier allowing their use (considering my limited skillset as I was learning that part of EXCEL by doing).
If the GM chooses to ignore the other mods, the count is irrelevant, and if they DO choose all mods, then the reduction table in the spinal mount section should not be free (as in two mods for the TL of one). If they don't want either set of mods, making it manual solves that need as well.

I cannot imagine that a polity could not build a spinal mount at a lower tech to avoid an automatic price increase.

Your sheet, your call.

 

[Arkathan]

Your sheet, your call.

See the edit, posted while you were typing.

 

[Terry Mixon]

See the edit, posted while you were typing.

Thanks. I appreciate your work and consideration..

 

[Bifford]

Matt, do you and the team ever come to the Swindon Wildcats ice hockey games? (I'm here atm.)