ERRATA - It Begins!

[SSWarlock]

Ship design issue:

Seems like all weapons are mountable in multiple turrets, and take up the same space. Particle accelerators thus can be triple mounted in a ship as small as 100dt - and using a fixed mount, a 10dt fighter can similalry have three Particle weapons.

This is somewhat terrifying...

Yeah. Ain't it great? :twisted:

 

[captainjack23]

And again:

The particle beam bay is outclassed by multiple PA turrets - even if turret size particle beams are limited to single mounting in triple turrets.

2 single particle beam turrets do the same damage as 1 particle bay (6d6), cause double (2) the rad hits, take up way less internal space (2 dTons vs 51 dTons), and cost half of the bay (assume triple turret w/. one PA = 5 Mcr x2 vs 20 Mcr. They also have the same range, and more flexibility (two targets), all for the cost of an extra gunner and a hardpoint. They are also more survivable ( 1 hit = dead for the bay, 1 hit = half effect for two turrets);


Two bays cost quadruple the price (two single mounted PA in triple turrets =10) , take up 102 tons (51 x the two turrets). They do do twice the damage of a PA turret, but cause the same rad hits.

I suppose the point is that bays replace turrets on big ships, and allow converting money and displacement into firepower, a compromise acceptable for military ships - fair enough.

However, for the P beam weapons, the cost alone suggests that this is a bad deal, and the hardpoint issue actually suggests that while smaller craft would benefit from to mounting bays (to conserve hardpoints) they are less likely to want to spend the internal space.

Note that, if the (as written) rules allow triple PA turrets, or a single Pa in a single turret, the benefits swing way over to turrets.

I suggest as a fix:
1. Have a PA bay do 6 to7 d6 + 2 rad hits, wheras a single PA would do 2d6 + 1 rad. AND

2. Only allow turret PA weapons to be single mounted and still require a triple turret.


Note: the above is a totally untested and dog-headed suggestion. YMMV. Etc.

 

[apoc527]

Don't forget that the 3d6 PB turret is way less likely to penetrate heavy armor compared to the 6d6 bay weapon. So saying that 2 turrets and 1 bay do the "same damage" isn't really true. Yes, they both do 6d6, but one does it against Armor x2 and the other goes against only Armor.

 

[captainjack23]

Now:


Missiles. That ever changing topic. This isn't an eratta, as much as a suggestion for clarification.

<post moved to missle andmagazine thread - turns out it really wasn't really wasn't an errata posting as much as a topic ramble> 8)

 

[Chronus]

2 single particle beam turrets do the same damage as 1 particle bay (6d6), cause double (2) the rad hits, take up way less internal space (2 dTons vs 51 dTons), and cost half of the bay (assume triple turret w/. one PA = 5 Mcr x2 vs 20 Mcr. They also have the same range, and more flexibility (two targets), all for the cost of an extra gunner and a hardpoint. They are also more survivable ( 1 hit = dead for the bay, 1 hit = half effect for two turrets);

captianjack23:

1st - my apologies for not reading the whole thread. I'm still building up the ambition to read 10+ pages of rules analysis.

2nd - I have not been able to find anywhere in the core rules the idea of combining all the damage from a single turret, or to combine damage from all the turrets, for that matter.

Two single particle turrets cause 2 X 3d6 of damage ... not 6d6. This is important when it comes to armor because the armor absorbs on a per weapon basis . . . at least, as far as I can tell. Consequently, a ship with an armor rating of 18 CANNOT be touched by any kind of turret or missile. It would take a bay weapon to do that. The high armor, of course, would absorb much of the damage, but at least there is a chance of breaking through.

 

[captainjack23]

Don't forget that the 3d6 PB turret is way less likely to penetrate heavy armor compared to the 6d6 bay weapon. So saying that 2 turrets and 1 bay do the "same damage" isn't really true. Yes, they both do 6d6, but one does it against Armor x2 and the other goes against only Armor.

An excellent point, and one I forgot about because thats not how I'm used to doing it. Thanks for the catch.

So then, a bay looks more competitive...but while turret Pbeams may not penetrate, each weapon does score an automatic rad hit, which is not to be ignored.. and having having two triple particle turret hits producing six rad hits still is a serious contender for "most likely to cause a very bad day if hit by".

I'd still suggest that turret Pbeams at the least be limited to one/turret; or at the very least, reduced to 2d6+rad effect. As it is now, they are about twice as effective as a laser.

 

[captainjack23]

2 single particle beam turrets do the same damage as 1 particle bay (6d6), cause double (2) the rad hits, take up way less internal space (2 dTons vs 51 dTons), and cost half of the bay (assume triple turret w/. one PA = 5 Mcr x2 vs 20 Mcr. They also have the same range, and more flexibility (two targets), all for the cost of an extra gunner and a hardpoint. They are also more survivable ( 1 hit = dead for the bay, 1 hit = half effect for two turrets);

captianjack23:

1st - my apologies for not reading the whole thread. I'm still building up the ambition to read 10+ pages of rules analysis.

HA ! Slacker. You probably have an interesting job....

2nd - I have not been able to find anywhere in the core rules the idea of combining all the damage from a single turret, or to combine damage from all the turrets, for that matter.

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't stack after looking at it myself - it specifically states that armor applies to each weapons damage - so, even though one would (I think) make one gunnery roll for a triple you still are firing three weapons which would resolve seperately.

So, you and apoc have a good point; but see my comments on rad hits.

 

[apoc527]

OTOH, if we go with the "hits do not stack," then pulse lasers are REALLY awful weapons (and so are missiles). Maybe HG will add higher tech versions or provide optional rules?

 

[kafka]

It is the Imperium or the Third Imperium NEVER Third Imperium of Mankind.

Artwork grumbles have been registered in another thread...

 

[Chronus]

so, even though one would (I think) make one gunnery roll for a triple you still are firing three weapons which would resolve seperately.

I'm still under the impression that EACH weapon within a turret requires a "to hit" roll. The MGT rules seem to imply this and it was certainly the case in CT, although this last point may not matter anymore. However, I do like the idea since it's fewer die rolls. 8)

So, you and apoc have a good point; but see my comments on rad hits.

I'm not sure yet how to read the additional crew rad hits. If the armor isn't penetrated, should the crew hit even be applied? I don't think metal needs to literally be penetrated in order for radiation contamination to occur, but looking at the rad rules on page 142, it says that "Starship Armour: Decreases exposure by 500." That's WAAAYYYY over the measly 240 maximum rad that occurs in a crew hit.

 

[captainjack23]

so, even though one would (I think) make one gunnery roll for a triple you still are firing three weapons which would resolve seperately.

I'm still under the impression that EACH weapon within a turret requires a "to hit" roll. The MGT rules seem to imply this and it was certainly the case in CT, although this last point may not matter anymore. However, I do like the idea since it's fewer die rolls. 8)

So, you and apoc have a good point; but see my comments on rad hits.

I'm not sure yet how to read the additional crew rad hits. If the armor isn't penetrated, should the crew hit even be applied? I don't think metal needs to literally be penetrated in order for radiation contamination to occur, but looking at the rad rules on page 142, it says that "Starship Armour: Decreases exposure by 500." That's WAAAYYYY over the measly 240 maximum rad that occurs in a crew hit.

Hmmm. Fact is that depending on the radiation type, metallic armor can increase the lethality - you get this nasty cascade of shortlived highly energetic secondary particles - rad protection by itself is generally designed to aborb rather than deflect (as with metallic armor)....but it aint so good at stopping shrapnel or laser blasts....so in many cases armor could make it worse, and certainly doesn't require penetration.

On the other hand....as to the Rad reduction -yeah thats confusing, but there it is. Especialy confusing since, IIRC, it doesn't mention the thickness of the armor as an issue.

So, on the balance, I'm now not sure either about rad hits being automatic in terms of occurring if the the armor isn't penetrated .

I suppose that on balance, if penetration is required for the Rad hits to occur, P Bays are reasonable in comparison even to triple particle turrets....which unfortunately ARE an abomination in the eyes of the gods of Traveller.

 

[cbrunish]

I noticed that the Scout ship's power does not seem consitant. It shows that there is 40 tons of fuel for one jump-2 and 10 weeks of operation. I understand the 20 tons but for 10 weeks at power plant A, it should be 10 tons (2 tons per 2-weeks x 5). This would give fuel tonnage of 30 tons. The other 10 tons would be sent to cargo.

Also I noticed a problem with the example of character creation of poor Alexander L. Jamison. During the first term he gains another skill, but no reason why this is given (this gives him 3 skills the 1st term). And on his 5th Term he does not get promoted to Captain (which would actually be 1st officer) but it shows him to be Merchant Captain Alexander Jamison. He would be 2nd Officer. This would be correct for the example shown on page 7.

And about commissions. If a character rolls for a commission does he still get to roll for advancement? Does he get a skill for the commission? And finally if he is able to roll for advancement also, does he get a skill for each (commission and advancement)? :?:

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

When making your decision about how to houserule the turret "to hit" rolls, consider the length of a turn.

Do any of us REALLY think that only one shot is made with a turret weapon in a turn? Making it one roll per turret seems like a nice simplification, but it might skew you more away from reality (if we can use the word reality when discussing space battles) and upset the game balance.

I think each GM will need to decide for themselves how "realistic" they want to be.

Personally, I am using 1 to hit roll per turret (assuming same weapons and same target) and separate damage rolls.

Also, I've decided that armor must be penetrated in order to inflict radiation damage. No other explanation makes as much sense.

 

[AKAramis]

Also, I've decided that armor must be penetrated in order to inflict radiation damage. No other explanation makes as much sense.

and, from here, your decision on this issue makes no sense at all; armor merely changes what form of radiation gets through.

 

[dgmonteavaro]

If a character rolls for a commission does he still get to roll for advancement?

Look page 5, at the table, "8.d"--> Military [...] can roll for commission instead of rolling for advancement.


Yestarday we made two characters and we made mistakes that I came up when reading again the example.

 

[-Daniel-]

This does bring up an interesting question.

If my character has five terms in as a Marine for example. Three as Enlisted and then two as Officer, is he a rank 2 for the benefit table? He is only a rank 2 officer. Or do we add both and he is a rank 5 for the benefit table?

I know what I think, but would like to hear your thoughts.

Daniel

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I think the book tells you to add all their rank together (so he would be Rank 5) for benefits. Don't have the book in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it is there.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Also, I've decided that armor must be penetrated in order to inflict radiation damage. No other explanation makes as much sense.

and, from here, your decision on this issue makes no sense at all; armor merely changes what form of radiation gets through.

Considering just E-M radiation, 4 inches of steel with reduce the amount of Gamma radiation by 90%. 2 inches of lead will do the same thing, as will 24 inches of water. Only Gamma rays will even penetrate the thinnest spacecraft skin, so only those numbers are used.

For Neutrons it is 10 inches of water and Steel and Lead have essentially no effect.

If you acknowledge that your hull and your armor will be designed to block both Neutrons and Gamma Rays, then if you don't penetrate the armor, the crew will not be exposed to the radiation.

 

[captainjack23]

Considering just E-M radiation,
If you acknowledge that your hull and your armor will be designed to block both Neutrons and Gamma Rays, then if you don't penetrate the armor, the crew will not be exposed to the radiation.

This is interesting, but is moving outside of eratta - I'd like to discuss it more -another thread perhaps ?

 

[captainjack23]

Summary of errata issues in my previous posts:

1. Particle beam weapons should be limited to one/turret -consistency with CT/HG and general play balance.

2. clarify the tasks and effects of multi weapoturret fire - one gunnery roll or many, does damage add together, or does each shot penetrate seperately....

3. Particle Beam Bays may be underpowered or overcosted relative to turrets. This is much less of an issue as a result of the discussion here -thanks !

4. Missles seem awfully big - classic Trav misssles are over 600/dton, and fairly small. MGT missles are more like small submarine torpedoes (12/dton). Intentional ?

5. Note by others: number of missles ready in a launcher needs clarification; same with missle bays.
reloading from magazine/storage (time and procedure) might want to be definined. <-nota bene - relates to the missle size issue.

6. Particle beams: is the rad hit automatic regardless of penetration ?

I think that covers the recent errata points I noticed .