Barbette Ion Weapons - intended effectiveness?

[Sigtrygg]

In the Galaxiad era yes, because the hop drive has been discovered by the Republic of Regina (there is no Imperium) as to collector availability they are as common as TL6 jump drives. The collector as presented in MgT is common enough for it to be included in the Great Rift campaign pack, so I am sure it could be rolled out for other applications.

A fleet of collector (jump) powered Zhodani tenders with energy screens and riders equipped with massed banks of ion cannon, while torpedo boats swoop and dive - that is the MgT ship paradigm now.

 

[Arkathan]

MgT is set in 1105.
There is no Republic of Regina. There is no Virus. There is no Galaxiad.
Where are these Vietnam era (TL6) Jump Drives coming from?

So play your game in your setting your way.

 

[Reisender]

What do jump drives have to do with Ion Cannon Barbette and its effectiveness?

 

[Arkathan]

What do jump drives have to do with Ion Cannon Barbette and its effectiveness?

It would appear that they are related by the same crisis caused by Quad turrets not appearing on page 28.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Is it too much to ask for consistency between editions? At least they have the majority of Third Imperium tech as baseline with the tachyon cannon relegated to the cartoon science section. Mind you it also makes the ion weapons baseline for the MgT Third Imperium, at a stretch you could say they are the T5 commcaster/datacaster weaponised versions.

Explain how an ion cannon is different to a particle accelerator perhaps? It can not be an ion projector, since charged particles would disperse in space, so a collimated EMP is the most likely explanation.

And yes, the damage and effects of the barbette weapon and the bay weapon need a second pass.

 

[Bill Sheil]

Addressing the original post:

With the new High Guard currently saying to x3 for a barbette this means average of 210 power gone in a single hit.

The damage multiplier is applied to actual damage after the armour and other mitigations are applied but Ion Weapons entirely bypass this step ("Instead of dealing damage as usual...") so I think strictly as written the x3 multiplier does not apply.

But on the other hand the table entries for Ion Weapon on the bays lack the x10 multiplier, which is present on the barbette table and the original HG so I am wondering whether this is an intended change in the rules that has been edit-mangled and the actual intention is that Ion Weapons are supposed to get the weapon mount multiplier: 2Dx3, 6Dx10, 8Dx20, 10Dx100 respectively instead of the flat x10.

The number of dice scales approximately with the other weapon types so the overall increase in effect is consistent.

 

[Feagal]

Addressing the original post:


The damage multiplier is applied to actual damage after the armour and other mitigations are applied but Ion Weapons entirely bypass this step ("Instead of dealing damage as usual...") so I think strictly as written the x3 multiplier does not apply.

But on the other hand the table entries for Ion Weapon on the bays lack the x10 multiplier, which is present on the barbette table and the original HG so I am wondering whether this is an intended change in the rules that has been edit-mangled and the actual intention is that Ion Weapons are supposed to get the weapon mount multiplier: 2Dx3, 6Dx10, 8Dx20, 10Dx100 respectively instead of the flat x10.

The number of dice scales approximately with the other weapon types so the overall increase in effect is consistent.

Aye, the numbers as they stand in the new book don't seem to work for the barbette compared to the others.

Regardless, I favour using the turret multiplier only, I don't want a single barbette mount to pause a ship so easily.

 

[Bill Sheil]

Yep that is consistent with my second suggestion, 2Dx3 would mean that a single Ion barbette would take a chunk out of the power output from most small starships but not render them wholly dead in the water unless they got cumulative hits with +6 effect.

Edit: And the scaling makes Ion Bays more cost effective in reply to another post.
It seems like a solid rule interpretation, I would be interested to see if it can officially confirmed or denied.