CSC: Things that annoy me.

[dimonic]

On page 83, there are separate listings in the text for "Rifle, Heavy, Gauss, 5.5mm (TL 13)", and "Rifle, Sniper, Gauss, 8mm (TL 13)".

In the table that follows, (same page), there is only "Heavy Gauss (Sniper) Rifle". I assume that this is the "heavy" one from the text?

I also note that this weighs 9Kg - pretty huge for a sniper rifle? Especially one that takes a reduced magazine without full auto-fire.

I would suggest that the "Heavy (sniper)" designated rifle would be the 8 mm version, and carry the listed stats.

The 5.5 mm version would be the Sniper version, and weigh (my own guesstimate) 6 Kg, and do 4d6+2 AP damage, and cost (say) 8,000 - or (my preference), the Gauss sniper rifle would use standard ammunition, do standard damage, weigh 4 Kg (same as std), and achieve its bonuses through higher power use = higher muzzle velocity, better machining and precision, and balance the weght with non-full auto and smaller magazine. Cost suggestion CR 6000.

In both cases the ammo should probably be more than the std rifle ammo - just due to smaller sales volume of the magazines.

 

[Matrix Cypher]

One of the things that anoys me in all of the books, is the weight of ammunition reloads..... there do not appear to be any. Ive had to revert to looking through all the CT books to find what I could and pro-rate those that do not have any.

 

[Matrix Cypher]

On page 83, there are separate listings in the text for "Rifle, Heavy, Gauss, 5.5mm (TL 13)", and "Rifle, Sniper, Gauss, 8mm (TL 13)".

In the table that follows, (same page), there is only "Heavy Gauss (Sniper) Rifle". I assume that this is the "heavy" one from the text?

I also note that this weighs 9Kg - pretty huge for a sniper rifle? Especially one that takes a reduced magazine without full auto-fire.

I would suggest that the "Heavy (sniper)" designated rifle would be the 8 mm version, and carry the listed stats.

The 5.5 mm version would be the Sniper version, and weigh (my own guesstimate) 6 Kg, and do 4d6+2 AP damage, and cost (say) 8,000 - or (my preference), the Gauss sniper rifle would use standard ammunition, do standard damage, weigh 4 Kg (same as std), and achieve its bonuses through higher power use = higher muzzle velocity, better machining and precision, and balance the weght with non-full auto and smaller magazine. Cost suggestion CR 6000.

In both cases the ammo should probably be more than the std rifle ammo - just due to smaller sales volume of the magazines.

Actually Sniper Rifles tend to weigh more, the heavier barrel, action, and stock to make it a more reliable and stable platform for the shooter.

 

[BP]

It's obvious that most of the CSC content was not originally written specifically for MgT (or was lifted blatantly from other sources) - and the editing was shoddy, but, haven't found it to be much of a problem - my players always get custom lists/writeups from me, anyway.

Always treated prices in books like 'Suggested Retail' - actual cost varies by market and situation... and Broker skill is negotiating skill. With other skills like Persuade, Streetwise, Diplomacy and Deception counting when Ref deemed appropriate. Roleplay also factors in (both positive and negative :twisted: ).

Realworld weapons and other tech spec'd in Sci-Fi gaming (given its scope) is asking for believability issues with design and game mechanics. Individual item mass is overkill in Traveller (and highly inconsistent), simple categories accounting for mass, bulk and TL differences, would be more useful. X ammo = Y encumbrance. So many Y's = Z encumbrance. Reduced END from there based on STR...

 

[dimonic]

Actually Sniper Rifles tend to weigh more, the heavier barrel, action, and stock to make it a more reliable and stable platform for the shooter.

Actually, I agree and I think I was taking that into account. I still think the heavier weight of the barrel, and stock would be offset by the lack of full auto (which ought to weigh something in parts and cooling), and more importantly the (much) smaller magazine (one of which I assume is factored into the rifle weight).

The main point however, was that there are two descriptions and only one table line item, and that item does not seem to correspond 1:1 with either description.

 

[nats]

CSC is far too complex for a RPG game. It sends my head reeling in circles. I once tried to syncronise it with the Core Rules and gave up in the end.

 

[locarno24]

I once tried to syncronise it with the Core Rules and gave up in the end.

That was my pet hate. I like the armour piercing rules, but dislike the fact that it retroactively gave armour piercing qualities to every 'hard round' weapon going, without changing armour effectiveness or price.

Equally, the 'stacking armour' mechanic - whilst fine for partial armour - was annoying when it came to stuff like subdermal armour and protec - the whole point of these is that you could wear them under other armour (with others you just couldn't).

 

[barnest2]

Subdermal did stack... at full value

 

[GamerDude]

Go away for 3 weeks, and come back to find the CSC is still getting flak, and not from me. :roll:

Yep, what was clearly going to be a defining book of for MGT should have been done properly first time round, probably when the core book was being written so that the authors of csc wouldn't start re-writing the rules.

Actually, unless there is justification for that - it should have been caught by any editor who cross references work - its the same problem why WotC had almost identical feats across the first four "Complete" books for 3.x