Central Supply Catalogue- Disintegrator Question

[Captain Jonah]

Ah the good old disintegrator.


And that causes you to go “Ouch I almost lost an entire stat to that 2D6 damage”. :roll:

Traveller, a 1970s sci fi game set in the 1770s using 1950s technology :lol: :wink:

So, if we bring the disintegrator concept into the 21st-century of sci-fi gaming, are we talking about (in its most basic/lowest form) 4d6, 6d6, 8d6 or more damage? On an average, I'd think we would be talking 6d6 to have a chance to disintegrate the average man-sized target (3 x 2d6 stats). Then again, do we add more for the need to inflict more damage not merely to kill, but to "disintegrate" or is disintegration merely an fx effect? Should there be some explosive effect to nearby objects to what gets disintegrated?

The damage should be much higher simply to reflect the fact that even a 1mm beam just converted a tiny bit of you into a large ball of vaporised water at explosive speeds. There are very few bits of the human body that can cope with 400 cubic cm of vapour suddenly expanding inside them or even near them. On a larger scale, say a 1cm beam, while the area disintegrated is fairly small (only 25 cubic cm in the average torso) that releases a mere 40,000 cubic cm of vapour which is bound to go boom and hit anyone nearby with bits of exploded person. :shock:

Its not the tiny area being disintegrated, its the energy release that goes with it. Much like lasers. The 1mm hole through your chest is minor and with mid battle adrenaline flowing would be missed. The football sized explosion inside your chest is the bit that hurts and is noticed. :roll:

Plus all those other options for a weapon that completely destroys anything it hits, sniping through walls, B&E, shooting holes in the planet or just for fun go down to the star port and shoot tiny holes in peoples fusion cores or jump drives. Since the weapon ignores all armour those starship hulls don’t stop it and 1mm may be a tiny hole on the scale of a star ship but make a few of those sin the jump drive and…. Oops it’s a miss jump :twisted:

 

[alex_greene]

The principle behind the disintegrator was based on the nuclear damper - two poles emit one damper beam which penetrates matter. At their intersection, which could be inside an object bypassing its armour, the beams intersect. At the point where they intersect the beams heterodyne, forming a node within which the nuclear forces are suppressed and matter in that area ceases to exist as matter.

Disintegrators as written could bypass armour altogether. Ancient disintegrators such as the Oynssork from the old Droyne Alien Module, and the handheld zapgun from Twilight's Peak, had a unique psionic targeting mechanism (consider it as kind of a Psionic Interface) - you would focus on the target, and the targeting mechanism would blur your mind. If you focus on the object again, the weapon read that renewed focus as a commitment. The weapon would then activate and tear out a chunk of what you were thinking of.

This was the basis of my Disintegrator Therapy medical technology from my Medic! article (S&P 63/64): using really advanced tech to target and dissolve embedded foreign objects, blood clots, dental and arterial plaques, abscesses, parasitic infestations and cancer cells without cutting open the patient.

My article on nuclear dampers and disintegrators was in S&P 72. S&P 63 introduced disintegrator medical therapy and they feature in my scenario "The Thing In The Pit," in S&P 89.

I seem to have a fondness for my weapons that make redshirts go POOF, leaving nothing but their boots.

 

[Captain Jonah]

I seem to have a fondness for my weapons that make redshirts go POOF, leaving nothing but their boots.

So clearly there would be a market for body armour made out of whatever red shirt boots are made from as the boots seem to survive being disintigrated :lol:

 

[locarno24]

So, if we bring the disintegrator concept into the 21st-century of sci-fi gaming, are we talking about (in its most basic/lowest form) 4d6, 6d6, 8d6 or more damage? On an average, I'd think we would be talking 6d6 to have a chance to disintegrate the average man-sized target (3 x 2d6 stats). Then again, do we add more for the need to inflict more damage not merely to kill, but to "disintegrate" or is disintegration merely an fx effect? Should there be some explosive effect to nearby objects to what gets disintegrated?

It depends whether you want 'disintegrator' simply to be a type of damage (like a bladed edge, blunt force trauma, heat, etc) which can occur from a niggling minor disintegration wound (loss of the tip of a finger, or a neat hole punched through you) to something very serious indeed, or are hard over on "when it dithintegrates, boy, does it dithintegrate!" and leaving nothing but a Bammfff!! noise and some wierd-smelling smoke.

I'm not sure if CSC has them in, but again, Secrets of the Ancients has some heavier-calibre disintegrators - the Improved Matter Disintegrator (Damage 3d6, Ignores Armour), carried by man-sized assassin drones, Disintegrator Gauntlets (4d6, Ignores Armour, pistol range or melee), and the vehicle-mounted Ancient Matter Disintegrator (6d6, Ignores Armour). All of these are ancient tech, built at TL-more-than-you (25 ish).

 

[Imperium]

I'm not sure if CSC has them in, but again, Secrets of the Ancients has some heavier-calibre disintegrators - the Improved Matter Disintegrator (Damage 3d6, Ignores Armour), carried by man-sized assassin drones, Disintegrator Gauntlets (4d6, Ignores Armour, pistol range or melee), and the vehicle-mounted Ancient Matter Disintegrator (6d6, Ignores Armour). All of these are ancient tech, built at TL-more-than-you (25 ish).

That just seems... underwhelming. I'd like to know what the author/playtesters really thought here.

 

[alex_greene]

I suspect a spot of "gama-balance" nerfing going on here.

 

[Prime_Evil]

But wouldn't that make it a nerf gun? :lol:

 

[F33D]

At the point where they intersect the beams heterodyne, forming a node within which the nuclear forces are suppressed and matter in that area ceases to exist as matter.

Which would necessarily mean, converted to energy. (First Law of Thermodynamics) Hence, a VERY big, BOOM! :shock:

 

[alex_greene]

Which would necessarily mean, converted to energy. (First Law of Thermodynamics) Hence, a VERY big, BOOM! :shock:

As I believe I have mentioned already.

The magic handwavium response is to state that, somehow, the energies released from the total conversion process are absorbed by the disintegrator to power the beam, thus giving it effectively unlimited energy - unless it misses ...

As for the apparent ridiculously low damage ratings, perhaps this can be handwavingly explained away by stating that it's possible to fine tune the beam to disintegrate only a part of something, rather than vapourise the whole target struck.

If you wish, you can ramp up a D-gun's cool factor by, for instance, allowing a D-gun the ability to inflict the exact same damage rating to personnel, vehicles and starships, punching holes through a ship's armour as easily as battle dress armour and cloth to strike at a target deep within the vehicle if necessary - and everything in the path of the beams as well, if you set your D-beam to work that way.

One final thought: if you want to really amp up the cool, disable or tone down your D-gun's energy absorption function, setting the D-gun to absorb only, say, 60% of the energies released. The remaining 40% of the energies released would be expended at the point of disintegration - which would put your target, whether human, vehicle or starship, at Ground Zero of a pretty big total conversion explosion, rendering the whole question of whether the beam ignores armour or not somewhat moot.

Not so much BOOM as BOOOOM.

 

[tneva82]

I'm not sure if CSC has them in, but again, Secrets of the Ancients has some heavier-calibre disintegrators - the Improved Matter Disintegrator (Damage 3d6, Ignores Armour), carried by man-sized assassin drones, Disintegrator Gauntlets (4d6, Ignores Armour, pistol range or melee), and the vehicle-mounted Ancient Matter Disintegrator (6d6, Ignores Armour). All of these are ancient tech, built at TL-more-than-you (25 ish).

That just seems... underwhelming. I'd like to know what the author/playtesters really thought here.

Dunno. Bigger ones are taking out enemy regardless of the armour he's wearing.

Okay so they lack big boom to make collateral damage but at least you can then use it safely in close quarters if need be

Dunno. If I had gun that takes out enemy I hit with it regardless of is he wearing loin cloth or battle dress I would be reasonably satisfied with the gun.

 

[CosmicGamer]

My typical issue with discussing FAR future technology is that if we could wrap our heads around it, it wouldn't be far future technology.

I'm stupid when it comes to all this science so I can blissfully play a game with Jump drive, gravity manipulation, and disruptors.

Why can't some future science allow the "disruption" of matter without high heat or energy at the point of effect? To me, the notion of disruption is vague enough to be plausible. But then someone has to come along and try and explain it.

When you start to give scientific reasoning of how some future tech works is when things can break down. Now, it needs to adhere to those scientific principles and not use some as to yet unknown method.

I'm not a science whiz, but here is a thought. What effect would a 1 nm "ray" that suddenly expands have? It would quickly, almost instantly, push aside surrounding matter and the matter within the 1nm "ray" would now be under much reduced pressure. This is in conjunction with other sub atomic effects on the matter within the ray. The further the "ray" expands, the greater the as to yet unknown sub atomic effects are. Could this also explain why it doesn't effect denser material? The ray can pass through it, but can't expand to cause it's effect. Again, sorry if this makes no scientific sense.

 

[2330ADUSA1]

I agree 100% with your thoughts...to many players in this game and I have been GMing/Playing now for 36+ yrs dig into the "SCIENCE" and try to analize this or that and apply our current level of knowledge and say this or that would not work and etc. Give me a break...this is a SciFi "Fantasy Game" guys and is meant to have fun and be exciting to play.

Look in my game I use as the primary weapon systems:

Plasma Bay Weapons
Plasma Beam Weapon turrets
Plasma Pulse Weapon turrets
Missiles (Many different types)
Armor Plating
Shields (with different effects)
* Many different defensive systems

Now my games are set in both Traveller and 2300 Traveller settings and I use those weapons. Also for the record I am 48 yrs old and have gamed for 36+ yrs and have a Traveller setting / campaign setting that I have run for 25+ yrs. Most of my players(7 guys) have been my gamers for 15+ yrs and my own age, and we are all IT techie guys. Most of my capaigns use many Alternative systems instead of standard game ones, and it all works quite well.

No one that I game with wastes a single minute on the "what if factor - how do I explain the far future technology biz" they are roleplayers that want to enjoy the game for fun and have a good time with others they game with at the same time. They like the setting and I try to make the tech at least sudo-real looking/sounding/feeling and if it works don't over analyze it to death to figure it out. This is a GAME, so have fun Playing a Game!!!

Penn

 

[rust]

I agree 100% with your thoughts...to many players in this game and I have been GMing/Playing now for 36+ yrs dig into the "SCIENCE" and try to analize this or that and apply our current level of knowledge and say this or that would not work and etc. Give me a break...this is a SciFi "Fantasy Game" guys and is meant to have fun and be exciting to play.

Well, it should not come as a surprise that many people
expect at least a friendly nod towards the basics of scien-
ce from a Science Fiction game.

The days when science fiction indeed was fiction about
possible developments in science seem gone, today space
fantasy has usurped much of the genre, but this does not
necessarily mean that ridiculous pseudo-science has to be
accepted without complaint. :wink:

 

[2330ADUSA1]

LOL..."rust" in my gaming and GMing I put Fun first! My players are all Roleplayers, and that is the fun they seek. Being involved in situations and working out the situations and complex problems and doing all with the scope of their played characters within the campaign. There is no Monty-Hall gaming in my campaigns...and I try for sudo-realistic game situations.

I have never dug so deep into the Science of why this or that would or would not work as long as it looked like it did work or could work. I am willing to look past the science as we know it now and just except it. Now I know my approach is followed by alot of others since all 7 of my players are all GM/DMs as well too and they all have their own gaming groups that meet the off weeks that I do not play(we play every other wednesday night from 7-11pm at my house in my dinning room). Each of my gamers has their own gaming group that they either GM/DM their own games/campaigns on the off weeks I do not game my campaign. We are all college educated folks and all Senior level IT folks (DBAs, Network Techs, Sys Admns, Programmers/Developers, IT managers). We are all friends to, having shared much of our personal lives and families over the past 15+ yrs with each other too. LOL in the middle of the summer we have a huge party at my house of all the gamers from all our groups at my house and THAT is a sight to see and meet the many different gamers and their families from many different walks of life. I can always tell the different groups of Traveller players...The Role players vs the Tech Heads that sit around picking apart some movie because this or that technology might not of worked the way it was used in a movie. Most likely Promethius will be what many of them will be talking about this year at the party. Meanwhile the Role players will be talking abot the situations and what if they did this or that instead or went that way and tried that. Two different approaches to the game and having fun in my book, but neither is right or wrong. I just stand on the Role Playing side and like the pure fun scope is all.

Penn

 

[locarno24]

That just seems... underwhelming. I'd like to know what the author/playtesters really thought here.

It is, against a lightly armoured target. It's for killing the big boys.

 

[alex_greene]

That just seems... underwhelming. I'd like to know what the author/playtesters really thought here.

It is, against a lightly armoured target. It's for killing the big boys.

Which is why I suggested making the damage scalable, and ignoring the rule about reducing the damage against vehicular targets and starships.

These beauties can do the same damage to vehicles and ships alike. The only limitation is range.

 

[Captain Jonah]

I fully agree with the Fun part. I don't role play (or Geek/nerd/tech head if I'm not enjoying it).

Still Traveller is traditionally a Harder Science Fiction game not a Science Fantasy game. Thats why I prefer things to have a grounding in something that can be explained in a way that sort of makes sense with current theoretical science.

For Disintegrators I want to see a weapon that makes sense even if it is a fair bit hand waving. No Disintegrator pistols that make tanks vanish without so much as ruffling the hair of the Character standing next to them.

If a weapon is lethal to someone in powered armour it should be equally lethal to someone in a ships jump suit and tee shirt. If you have the science to shatter the bounds of atomic force holding molecules together and shunt the energy release into subspace so it doesn’t cause explosions that kill the pistol firer then why is it so puny in terms of damage.

Anyway a weapon that can shunt the energy released from atomic disintegration into sub space makes no sense, why waste time with the whole disintegration bit, just dump a chunk of the targets mass into subspace instead.

I don’t want to hear players say “It only does 2D damage and it ignores armour so the guys in flak jackets can rush it”. What I want to hear is “Dear gods the droyne has a disintegrator. Everyone fall back and keep out of sight, those rocks won’t help. We need to get seriously sneaky now”.

Buck Rogers is great fun and so is all of the Pulp 1930s stuff, its science fantasy with ray guns and swinging fists. Star trek with its Phasers that can make rocks explode one week and make them vanish without a trace the next is also Science Fantasy.

I prefer my traveller to be Science Fiction. Good fun and all but with a solid Science basis.

No for me a Disintegrator should be a scary thing. For both the firer and the target. Shoot someone in flak and its like a HE grenade going off inside the armour as you disintegrate a small bit of his body. Shoot someone in battledress and the energy release from the bonded super dense is like a nuke hand grenade. It kills the target but if you are too close it could kill you as well.

Having a weapon that you can use to shoot people inside a tank should do a lot more than tickle them, it should strike fear into the hearts of all who face it.

 

[locarno24]

“Dear gods the droyne has a disintegrator. Everyone fall back and keep out of sight, those rocks won’t help. We need to get seriously sneaky now”.

FGMP-16? If you don't like the current disintegrator rules, just use the man-portable artillery statlines.

If a weapon is lethal to someone in powered armour it should be equally lethal to someone in a ships jump suit and tee shirt.

It is - precisely as lethal, that's the point. Once damage reduction goes out of the window, 2D6 damage is still "ow, ow, ow" territory.

To each their own. To me, it's fair enough - the same as arc-field weapons, the fact that something will go through armour does not necessarily mean it'll do sufficient trauma to kill the soft stuff underneath.

A sufficiently fine 'needle' disintegrator beam will produce damage by energy-to-matter transfer, but if it's fine enough, it won't necessarily cause more raw trauma than (say) a 2mm gauss needle that's already punched through a cloth armour vest (the former doing 2D6 with no reduction, the latter doing 3D6 minus the armour).

 

[F33D]

My typical issue with discussing FAR future technology is that if we could wrap our heads around it, it wouldn't be far future technology.

Your missing the point. It isn't about REALLY understanding it (as in REAL science). It IS about rules consistency and logic. There are SO many possible uses for this weapon that the designer needs to describe the "science fiction" of how it works so the GM can adjudicate. I don't care that it can't be made using our current knowledge (see Jump drives) but, that I can logically GM the items use. I can't as it is written.

It is like knowing whether inertia is retained in J-space and the like. NOT, trying to figure out if J-space is real...

 

[alex_greene]

My typical issue with discussing FAR future technology is that if we could wrap our heads around it, it wouldn't be far future technology.

Your missing the point. It isn't about REALLY understanding it (as in REAL science). It IS about rules consistency and logic. There are SO many possible uses for this weapon that the designer needs to describe the "science fiction" of how it works so the GM can adjudicate. I don't care that it can't be made using our current knowledge (see Jump drives) but, that I can logically GM the items use. I can't as it is written.

It is like knowing whether inertia is retained in J-space and the like. NOT, trying to figure out if J-space is real...

Which brings us back to S&P 72, and my take on the whole issue - including different kinds of disintegrator such as the Argand Gun, and different tools employing disintegrator and nuclear damper technology in a very creative way.