Core 2008 1e Clarification: Auto-Fire Attacks (NOTE: regarding Traveller Core Rulebook 2008 Edition "1e") Page 62)

[Yenaldlooshi]

OK, I hope the great minds in this forum can support this still. I just joined a group of players who are insisting we all abide by "Mongoose 1e" rules. Me being new, assumed that "1e" meant the Core 2020 book as opposed to Core Update 2022... silly me.

So, now I am trying to figure out the combat system of this older legacy system and no offence the legacy developers, but after working with Core22, this system feels like a bit of a hot mess. Anyway, here are my current big questions:

Page 62 states: "When using auto-fire, roll a number of dice equal to the Auto rating of the weapon and sort them into pairs as you wish. Each pair is an attack.", but then it does not give any examples of how this works.
I think I get it though so here is my example. Tell me if I have this correct;

Attacking full Auto-Fire with an ACR with a laser sight against one single target.
I have a skill of Gun Combat (Slug Rifle) level 3
I have aimed for 1 minor action
Auto score of weapon is 6 (page99)

I roll 6 dice and get 4,3,1,2,4,2
I pair them as follows:
1 + 4 = 5
2 + 3 = 5
2 + 4 = 6

For all 3 pairs I can add:
+1 Laser Sight
+1 for the aiming action
+1 for Skill (this is limited to +1 and not +3 because of the Auto-Fire rule cap on skill)

Modified results into 3 successful attacks.
5 + 3 = 8, hits with effect of 0
5 + 3 = 8, hits with effect of 0
6 + 3 = 9, hits with effect of 1

With this, I can roll damage as:
3d6 +0 - armor
3d6 +0 - armor
3d6 +1 - armor

I have used 3 x 6= 18 rounds of ammo

Due to recoil, my initiative will be reduced by: ((6 / 2) + 0)- STR DM if the number is greater than 0.

Is this all correct?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes.

Of course the target can dodge or have cover, imposing a negative DM so that you miss on your carefully calculated dice.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Due to recoil, my initiative will be reduced by: ((6 / 2) + 0)- STR DM if the number is greater than 0.

Presumably next round, as you don't change your current initiative during your round.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If you liked that, take a look at MgT1 High Guard combat and the barrage table...

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Yes.

Of course the target can dodge or have cover, imposing a negative DM so that you miss on your carefully calculated dice.

I hear you but don't you have to declare if you intend to dodge before attack rolls are made?

The book states "character who is about to be attacked can react.." (p61)

To me, "about to be" this means:

1) Attacker Declares intent to attack target and specifies target.
2) Defender has opportunity to React and is offered this.
3) If Defender declines, and once dice are in the air, no take backs. Since that would be based on info the target character could not know prior to players actions and rolls.


(in other words, if dice are rolling, the attack has been made, it is no longer "about to be", it IS)

Thus the attacker can know if there was a dodge and how to reorder the dice to greater effect.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

If you liked that, take a look at MgT1 High Guard combat and the barrage table...

gahhh! I am already "recoiling" from having to downgrade from Update 2022 down to 2008!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I hear you but don't you have to declare if you intend to dodge before attack rolls are made?

The book states "character who is about to be attacked can react.." (p61)

Agreed, but tabletop confusion can intervene.

The target says "I dodge", the Referee heard, but you didn't.
The Referee rules that cover applies, which you didn't anticipate.

As people gets excited, shit happens.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

When GM or Referee, I follow an strict outline for events like combat and "MC" carefully who is taking what actions. With these combat rules, I have created an outline that I basically check as I go. It includes things like:

"Declare if Hastening"
"Declare Attack"
"If Any Delayed, they may interupt at this point " <-- meaning after they have been offered the chance, next step and then the cannot till next initiative step
etc.

So this sort of confusion almost never happens in my game.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Here's my Combat Outline for 1e. I only drafted it yesterday.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Oops just found another error. Recoil does not inflict a -DM on any future attacks, just future initiative.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So this sort of confusion almost never happens in my game.

OK, I tend to rush thing and let players rounds overlap a bit; e.g as one player rolls damage, the next player starts to roll attacks.

If you are not in the moment and react promptly, you are bypassed. Combat is quick and sometimes a bit confused. I don't think that is a bad thing...

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

each their own but for a table top game, I prefer things to be more turn-based and not "real-time-strategy". If they were personally there in the character's combat, then they would have the situational awareness to react quicker. Since they are not, the extra prompting I give them for options like hasten or dodging is a fair compromise. That said, if I think someone is burning game time by being overly wishy-washy, then they might get a count down.

Personally, the outlines I use speed things up rather than slows them down. Details are not missed. You can keep the quickness you like, but lose the confusion over play-status and rules that almost no player really likes if we are being honest.

Now if the confusion is because they were on their phone and not in the moment as you mentioned, that is a different matter.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

By the way, thank you so much for your input on the Auto-Fire example. I have never actually done this and how no idea if my example was correct or completely off the mark. The "dice pairing" challenge is something I have not seen in the games I have played. Now I feel like I get it after your audit and confirmation of my example.

 

[Saladman]

I've played and run 1e. When in doubt, read the rule, and apply the plain meaning. Keeping in mind some instances are stated in full only once, and referenced only in passing elsewhere. Copy-pasting, but the emphasis is mine:

When using auto-fire, roll a number of dice equal to the Auto rating of the weapon and sort them into pairs as you wish. Each pair is an attack. Auto-fire attacks can be allocated to as many different targets as you have attacks provided all the targets are within six metres of each other. Auto-fire attacks cannot benefit from a skill any higher than level 1. Weapon skills of 2 or higher only count as 1 when making auto-fire attacks. Auto-fire uses a number of rounds equal to 3 x the Auto rating.

Spraying a single target with auto-fire is mechanically represented by the burst fire option:

When using burst fire, add the Auto value to the damage. Burstfire uses a number of rounds equal to the Auto rating.

Hosing down one target is resolved mechanically with Burst fire adding Auto rating to damage, not with multiple attacks. (In the case of an ACR with a +6 to damage, not bad at all). What throws people, and not just you, is that Burst fire and Auto fire are mechanically different but narratively the same thing. But applying, in your example, 9d6 of damage against one target from one attack breaks the scale of the game in both hit points and armor, while taking the plain reading of the rules solves the apparent breakpoint.

However your example was exactly correct if it had been against three separate targets within six meters of each other.

1) Attacker Declares intent to attack target and specifies target.
2) Defender has opportunity to React and is offered this.

Correct.

Thus the attacker can know if there was a dodge and how to reorder the dice to greater effect.

This is an intelligible and coherent position, but not necessary from the rules. It might just as well be ruled by the GM that, while the defender must declare the game action, the attacker doesn't automatically know in the heat of combat what all the other actions and modifiers are.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Spraying a single target with auto-fire is mechanically represented by the burst fire option:

Hosing down one target is resolved mechanically with Burst fire adding Auto rating to damage, not with multiple attacks.

I would disagree, they represent fire selector options, hence the difference in ammo consumption:

Full auto can be spread out over several targets (unlike burst), it doesn't have to.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Yeah, I am going with A-Dilbert on this one. I agree with the letter of the rule, though. It does say "Different" but instead of "MUST" in the sentence, you have "CAN", as in, they don't have to be different targets. ie. the rule is giving you the option to attack more targets if you wish to. But you don't loose those extra attacks if you choose to empty the mag on the one little dude you are giving a bad day too.

Burst fire is meant to be more accurate, but can still do a little more damage (by default this means it can get through armor easier for the purposes of game rules), plus ammo conservation as Dilbert pointed out.

Being a firearm guy, I thought the selector switch and what it implies from semi, burst and auto was obvious. I can see how there folk could be confused if it's not part of your day to day. I think mongoose was being merciful in not adding more recoil penalties than just the skill cap though. Too many pew pews all at once can make it hard to hold down that barrel rise!

Looking at the switch, I now see why 2020 calls "Full Auto" only "Auto". Technically speaking, "Burst" and "Auto-Fire" are both types of Automatic Fire. But the 2020 books only refer to "Auto-fire" to mean only full auto. Where I live, we always say "Full Auto" as the phrase to mean what Traveller 2020 is calling "Auto-Fire" because saying "Auto-fire" could mean either one, regardless of the printing on that Colt-type AR receiver.

 

[Saladman]

I would disagree, they represent fire selector options, hence the difference in ammo consumption:

Being a firearm guy, I thought the selector switch and what it implies from semi, burst and auto was obvious.

These would be arguments to make to the author of 1e, not to me. I stand by my statement as a game interpretation artifact, and by my argument that 9d6 damage on one target is neither intended nor balanced. Nor is 1e generally written in the legalese that would make parsing can and must a decisive argument.

But - not my game either, and some amount of GM ruling is assumed and required for that version. I do suggest you just ask your GM how it works in his game out of session, rather than waiting to spring it on him middle of session, then arguing your position. For all I know he's already in the other camp.

 

[Vormaerin]

I just look at it like this: "do you want to receive 9d6 to the face in a random combat with your 21hp and permadeath cuz no cheesy magic do overs?"

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

rather than waiting to spring it on him middle of session, then arguing your position. For all I know he's already in the other camp.

No offense, but I was never going to "spring" anything on my GM and that is that is a pretty cynical interpretation of why I am reaching out in forums. I just wanted to hear a consensus so I know what to expect from players of 1e more experienced than I.

Now that said, I hope we can agree that sometimes we cannot agree in forums, and that said, I am sorry but your concept of "full fire = burst fire when there is only one target" is not correct according to 1e rules as written. It just is not. Dismissing the rules as written as just so much "legalese" means you might as well game without the book at all. Just make it all Referee's whim what happens then you don't need dice either.
1) It's not per the rules. 2) It's not proper game balance in terms of ammunition use or accuracy. 3) It's not even an accurate representation of real life physics and the weapons technology!

Nobody need to take any arguments to the author of 1e. On at least this entry he was clear enough. I am pretty sure my GM is not in the other camp, because there is no "camp". (well, maybe there's just one camper lol )

Regardless, I appreciate your suggestions and feedback, but with regard to your "Auto fire is only burst fire on one target" suggestion, no thank you.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

These would be arguments to make to the author of 1e, not to me. I stand by my statement as a game interpretation artifact, and by my argument that 9d6 damage on one target is neither intended nor balanced. Nor is 1e generally written in the legalese that would make parsing can and must a decisive argument.
.

You won’t do 9d6 in a single attack to a single target though,

You’d get 3 separate 3d6 attacks (assuming all three attacks hit!).

The difference between 9d6 and 3x 3d6 might not matter for an unarmoured target, but say for argument’s sake that you fire at someone wearing armour with AV10.

3d6 averages 10.5, so the opponent will shrug off the three attacks on average. A single average 9d6 attack however averages 31.5, possibly enough to kill the target, through armour.

Emptying half a clip into an unarmoured target should produce messy results, as it does with the autofire rules