Extreme Range is -4 regardless of using a Scope or not?

[Yenaldlooshi]

Extreme Range is -4 regardless of *using* a Scope or not?

Gauss Rifle:
I want to fire at long range full auto: -2 it has the scope trait... even though I am not aiming?
I want to fire single shot at it's extreme range. I am taking a turn to aim, but so +1 but still -4 due to range -3?
I want to fire full auto at it's extreme range. I get the full -4 but am I really using the scope while it's on full auto?

let me know if I have the rules mechanics RAW correct. Not so much looking for OP-ED about if that "should" be the rules. (Mg2e)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Core'22, p77, Extreme Range:
Note that unless a weapon has the Scope trait (see page 79), all attacks made at a range greater than 100 metres are automatically considered to be Extreme Range. This assumes the Traveller is in a combat situation – if the Traveller is in a no-stress environment, the referee is free to increase this to 300 metres.

Core'22, p79:
Auto X: These weapons fire multiple rounds with every pull of the trigger, filling the air with a hail of fire. A weapon with the Auto trait can make attacks in three fire modes: single, burst and full auto. Attacks using the Auto trait lose any benefits gained from aiming.
...
A weapon cannot use the Auto trait in the same action as the Scope trait or an aiming action.

Core'22, p79:
Scope: The weapon has been fitted with vision-enhancing sights, allowing it to put shots on target from far greater ranges. A weapon with the Scope trait ignores the rule that limits all attacks made at a range greater than 100 metres are automatically treated as being at Extreme range, so long as the Traveller aims before shooting.

Core'22, p75:
AIMING
A Traveller who spends a Minor Action aiming at a target will receive DM+1 to their next ranged attack on the target, so long as they do nothing else but aim. A Traveller may use consecutive Minor Actions to aim, gaining a maximum of DM+6 to an attack if they are able to spend six consecutive Minor Actions aiming at the same target while doing nothing else

1) Long range, full auto => no Scope or aiming... DM -2 for range. Everything beyond 100 m is Extreme Range, regardless of weapon.

2) Extreme range, single shot => Extreme range extended beyond 100 m, DM -3 = -4 + 1. Note Aim DM +1 per action (including minor) spent, not turn.

3) Extreme range, full auto => No Scope trait, so extreme is everything beyond 100 m. DM -4, no scope, no aiming.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

1) Long range, full auto => no Scope or aiming... DM -2 for range. Everything beyond 100 m is Extreme Range, regardless of weapon.

2) Extreme range, single shot => Extreme range extended beyond 100 m, DM -3 = -4 + 1. Note Aim DM +1 per action (including minor) spent, not turn.

3) Extreme range, full auto => No Scope trait, so extreme is everything beyond 100 m. DM -4, no scope, no aiming.

Thanks for keeping to RAW in your answer. I guess my confusion when I wrote the question is how in the 3) example, at -4 with no scope and no aiming, why is it still ONLY -4? Should it not be higher? It makes me wonder if I was missing something from RAW like if there is a 100m cap on the range in that case because 100m is now the new limit of extreme range for the weapon. However, the syntax of the rule does seem to mean that it gets its full extreme range (rangex4) just at -4, which would be the same if the scope was used (before factoring in the aim action).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Thanks for keeping to RAW in your answer. I guess my confusion when I wrote the question is how in the 3) example, at -4 with no scope and no aiming, why is it still ONLY -4? Should it not be higher? It makes me wonder if I was missing something from RAW like if there is a 100m cap on the range in that case because 100m is now the new limit of extreme range for the weapon. However, the syntax of the rule does seem to mean that it gets its full extreme range (rangex4) just at -4, which would be the same if the scope was used (before factoring in the aim action).

That is RAW.

100 m is the start of extreme range, regardless of weapon (long arm), unless you use a Scope. The maximum range is unaffected.

 

[Vormaerin]

-4 is a very substantial to hit penalty in a 2d6 system. That means a normal basic damage hit is 12+. Even a very good marksman with +5 from stat & skill is going to need a 7+ before any opponent dodging/cover/other circumstances. I don't think it needs to be more extreme than that.

 

[Saladman]

I guess my confusion when I wrote the question is how in the 3) example, at -4 with no scope and no aiming, why is it still ONLY -4? Should it not be higher?

Should Full Auto attacks be subject to the cumulative -2 for taking multiple actions at once? I've never read it that way, and if it were intended it would be nice if it were spelled out, but have I been doing it wrong?

Full Auto in 1e did have more penalties. But they were dropped for 2e, which I took to be deliberate.

 

[Sigtrygg]

This and other threads have got me thinking.

Why does Mongosse Traveller complicate things with difficulty levels if they continually throw around +/-2 and +/-4 DMs? Shouldn't the difficulty level change instead? I know it does the same things mechanically, but there are odd places in the rules where difficulty level matters.

I may start a thread on this.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Why does Mongosse Traveller complicate things with difficulty levels if they continually throw around +/-2 and +/-4 DMs? Shouldn't the difficulty level change instead? I know it does the same things mechanically, but there are odd places in the rules where difficulty level matters.

It matters for robots and Expert software...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Should Full Auto attacks be subject to the cumulative -2 for taking multiple actions at once? I've never read it that way, and if it were intended it would be nice if it were spelled out, but have I been doing it wrong?

No, it's one Attack Action (Significant Action) that includes several attack rolls.

 

[MasterGwydion]

This and other threads have got me thinking.

Why does Mongosse Traveller complicate things with difficulty levels if they continually throw around +/-2 and +/-4 DMs? Shouldn't the difficulty level change instead? I know it does the same things mechanically, but there are odd places in the rules where difficulty level matters.

I may start a thread on this.

I already do this.

I mentioned it on here before and got told I was doing it wrong and that that was what boon and bane were for.

 

[swordtart]

Agree fully with AnotherDilbert.

The Field Catalogue introduced the idea of recoil which would affect the subsequent attack rolls in full auto, but specifically with the Gauss Rifle you wouldn't expect there to be any.

We can consider this in terms of precision and accuracy. The Gauss Rifle has the precision to achieve very tight group. Firing it from the hip however (Unaimed over 100m) you might not be able to put that tight group onto the target. A short range pistol on the other hand that has a maximum range of 100m can't even get a tight group at that range even if aimed well.

The Field Catalogue also introduces other modifiers that start to add complexity to MGT2 rather simplistic gun combat rules. Not all of them will sit well at everyone's table.

 

[rinku]

The Field Catalogue introduced the idea of recoil which would affect the subsequent attack rolls in full auto, but specifically with the Gauss Rifle you wouldn't expect there to be any.

Did you mean the accelerator rifle here? Gauss weapons have recoil. The projectile is pushed away electomagnetically and the recoil is smoother, but Newton's 3rd law fully applies. Zapping off a bunch of needles will have more kick. Rocket launchers and gyrojets are the ones where the projectile is propelling itself and the launcher is largely unaffected.

 

[swordtart]

Did you mean the accelerator rifle here? Gauss weapons have recoil. The projectile is pushed away electomagnetically and the recoil is smoother, but Newton's 3rd law fully applies. Zapping off a bunch of needles will have more kick. Rocket launchers and gyrojets are the ones where the projectile is propelling itself and the launcher is largely unaffected.

I meant in terms of the Recoil property in the Field Catalogue. It has a recoil of 7 (4D = 4 + Auto 3) that is completely negated by being a longarm (-6) and gauss (-1).

 

[rinku]

Okay. I get it now. There IS recoil, because of physics, but the Recoil Modifier is negligible, mostly because of the weapon's mass.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yes, the rules in the Field Catalogue have a significantly different system for how AP works, how Recoil works, how ammo works, etc.

The CRB/CSC use extremely simple systems. Traits tend to be all or nothing. You have full recoil or you don't. The Field Catalogue is for those who want a more granular system.

The problem is that you can't actually get the CRB weapons out of the system with any combination of choices. If there were choices in the FC that resulted in the CRB weapons, even if they aren't good choices, that would be fine. But, as it is, you are using one set of gear or the other, because they use different mechanisms.

 

[swordtart]

Yes, the rules in the Field Catalogue have a significantly different system for how AP works, how Recoil works, how ammo works, etc.

The CRB/CSC use extremely simple systems. Traits tend to be all or nothing. You have full recoil or you don't. The Field Catalogue is for those who want a more granular system.

The problem is that you can't actually get the CRB weapons out of the system with any combination of choices. If there were choices in the FC that resulted in the CRB weapons, even if they aren't good choices, that would be fine. But, as it is, you are using one set of gear or the other, because they use different mechanisms.

If you are willing to hold your nose, you can use a hybrid of the two, but it is easier to keep them separate. Weapons from the CRB and CSC are readily available versions. The FC weapons tend to be custom jobs (and why bother making a custom version that has similar capability of an off the shelf version).

Unfortunately the crunch in FC sometimes creates problems in their own right.

Archaic weapons suffer -2 penetration which makes armour disproportionately effective (as almost all modern Traveller armour is equally effective against all projectiles). This might be true of a smooth bore pistol, it need not be true for a muzzle loading rifle (especially one made from modern materials for trade purposes) which can reach the same muzzle velocity of a modern .38 pistol (which suffers a far less significant penetration modifier). Archaic pistols suffer very badly and triple armour values making them all but useless against armour. I would have preferred a muzzle loading trait instead.

Smoothbores are also assumed to be low velocity and are inaccurate. Archaic smoothbores are assumed to be low velocity but are not intrinsically inaccurate, so an archaic smoothbore is more accurate than a modern one which makes no sense.

Whilst ammunition is an important determinant of a firearms characteristics, once you deviate from the conventional metallic cartridge, there is less read across.

It is also a little annoying that there are no rules for designing hand weapons or shields and yet these appear in the equipment section (and many of them are ones that are already in the CRB).

Its a fun book and it has its uses, but too often you end up having to add in random modifiers (and this is embedded in the design rules on p28). Once you do that you are just making stuff up and so it isn't really a system any more.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Should Full Auto attacks be subject to the cumulative -2 for taking multiple actions at once? I've never read it that way, and if it were intended it would be nice if it were spelled out, but have I been doing it wrong?

Full Auto in 1e did have more penalties. But they were dropped for 2e, which I took to be deliberate.

IIRC yes, 1e had more penalties for autofire, but you could also pair up the hit dice any way you wanted after rolling rather than before. Rather than rolling 3 pair of dice for example, you rolled 6 individual and paired them up any way you wanted, so it was easier to get at least one hit.