Field Catalogue questions

[MonsterX]

Field Catalogue rules are hit or miss.

As regards armour piercing, it's dependent on muzzle velocity, size of ammunition, and a minimum hardness of the ammunition, which isn't covered in the book.

Greater muzzle velocity, plus increased size of ammunition, means greater recoil.

Then, you can configure the ammunition itself to have greater penetration, which would be either discarding sabot/elongated dart, jet of molten metal, or a very hard/heavy cone.

Easier at one hundred twenty millimetres, than twelve.

Penetration is also very much affected by range, but this is not in any Traveller rules as far as I can tell.

 

[Condottiere]

That would be the environmental aspect, local gravity well(s) and atmosphere.

I can't recall if the Field Catalogue mentions that.

However, ye jet of molten metal doesn't really get affected by range, though defences have improved against that.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Penetration is also very much affected by range, but this is not in any Traveller rules as far as I can tell.

MegaTraveller has penetration attenuation with range

 

[ResslynHalvik]

The table on p18 is key - it tells how to calculate base AP from penetration. You need a +1 penetration, and the only way you can get that (as far as I can tell) is using AP rounds (on p52). The reduced AP for assault barrels is from p42 - it reduces damage dice, which means it ultimately reduces AP because you get 1 fewer damage dice.

Sure, but there is nothing in FC that talks about AP being related to damage dice. For that you need to know to refer to CDC as @hopsnbaer kindly said above. I didn't know about that, and there isn't even a cross reference to CDC p178 from FC.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

CSC update page 178 - ARMOUR PIERCING
These rounds are pointed projectiles of dense or very
hard material designed to punch through armour. AP
ammunition provides a weapon with an AP trait equal to
the number of damage dice it rolls. If the weapon already
has the AP trait, this is added to the final AP score.

Thank you for this! I had no idea that page in a different book was a key part of the FC process.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

very likely not possible
even if it is, its def. not worth the time to figure it out
Just reduce the weight and make it a new gun.

I need to work out what length and type of barrel the Aluksen Ase has so I can adapt it. I could just assume it's a (Traveller-style) carbine-length barrel, smoothbore.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

Penetration is also very much affected by range, but this is not in any Traveller rules as far as I can tell.

AFAICT it handwaves it with the effective range.

 

[MonsterX]

I need to work out what length and type of barrel the Aluksen Ase has so I can adapt it. I could just assume it's a (Traveller-style) carbine-length barrel, smoothbore.

Smoothbore can't use AP ammo, so you'll have to be ok with it not being very effective against armour. A way to get around this would be to use HEAP ammo, and make it a large-bore, short barrel weapon so that you can do that.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

Smoothbore can't use AP ammo, so you'll have to be ok with it not being very effective against armour. A way to get around this would be to use HEAP ammo, and make it a large-bore, short barrel weapon so that you can do that.

Am I misreading p179 of the CDC?

But, whichever, I want to understand how to determine those attributes of that weapon so I can modify it using the FC rules.

 

[Condottiere]

Smoothbore's problem is accuracy.

Attach pop up fins.

Muzzle velocity is easier to increase.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

Smoothbore's problem is accuracy.

Attach pop up fins.

Muzzle velocity is easier to increase.

OK, bit I am still unclear how to determine what type and length of barrel the existing weapon has.

 

[MonsterX]

Am I misreading p179 of the CDC?

But, whichever, I want to understand how to determine those attributes of that weapon so I can modify it using the FC rules.

That in the CSC is a direct contradiction with the FC rules, so take your pick. IRL, there is a such thing as an AP shotgun slug, so it is not impossible to have armour piercing rounds you can put in your shotgun, although if you are using a slug it shouldn't have a spread like pellet ammunition, so that part should be ignored if using AP shotgun rounds (not sure if it is ignored in the CSC). A FC smoothbore doesn't have to mean shotgun, though, it could just shoot big inaccurate projectiles, like HEAP rounds, and be designed to be used in close quarters, so accuracy is not as important.

 

[ResslynHalvik]

That in the CSC is a direct contradiction with the FC rules, so take your pick.

The whole AP stuff seems to be pretty inconsistent between the two books. FC limits a personal conventional firearm to AP 2, but CSC allows it to get to AP 12

 

[hopsnbaer]

The whole AP stuff seems to be pretty inconsistent between the two books. FC limits a personal conventional firearm to AP 2, but CSC allows it to get to AP 12

I look at Traveller to be a little more Alacarte than many games. As a GM use what you like and makes sense to you, or take the latest printed product and use that as your new baseline. There are too many contradictions to try and reconcile them. Do you really need that much accuracy to tell a good story?

IMO, If something doesn't quite fit, the GM can come up with a reason, such as "This ?????? Weapon uses unusual materials and is ????? Better at ????? than the average TL?? weapon."

 

[J. L. Brown]

IMO, If something doesn't quite fit, the GM can come up with a reason, such as "This ?????? Weapon uses unusual materials and is ????? Better at ????? than the average TL?? weapon."

That is very rules-light, non-simulationist. Nothing wrong with that, lots of folks have fun that way; but people who buy rulebooks with systems that are supposed to work to add color or verisimilitude to the world, or provide deeper workings to underpin events and agendas in their game world -- those people are going to want rules that really do work; or else, why are they spending money?

If everything is always all-rule-zero-all-the-time, then there is no need to spend money on dice, character sheets, or anything else. I would hope that a rulebook publisher would appreciate that point of view; and so the Mercenary box (including the Field Catalog) was disappointing to me.

Others may disagree, of course.

 

[hopsnbaer]

That is very rules-light, non-simulationist. Nothing wrong with that, lots of folks have fun that way; but people who buy rulebooks with systems that are supposed to work to add color or verisimilitude to the world, or provide deeper workings to underpin events and agendas in their game world -- those people are going to want rules that really do work; or else, why are they spending money?

If everything is always all-rule-zero-all-the-time, then there is no need to spend money on dice, character sheets, or anything else. I would hope that a rulebook publisher would appreciate that point of view; and so the Mercenary box (including the Field Catalog) was disappointing to me.

Others may disagree, of course.

Can't argue with your point. Except, As long as the GM is consistent they can add rules for specific irregularities. An example is the Luriani Ships in the new JTAS 14. They have extra hull points, extra initiative and lower maintenance among other differences.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Can't argue with your point. Except, As long as the GM is consistent they can add rules for specific irregularities.

That should be a choice a GM makes; 'canon is not for the table top'. The people who write the rules are under more stringent requirements, because all the GMs out there are relying upon them to provide a consistent set of rules that hang together without a bunch of extra effort. The folks laying the foundation don't get to have wild, unexplainable stuff; the foundation needs to be sturdy to support everything else -- not made of marshmallow.

An example is the Luriani Ships in the new JTAS 14. They have extra hull points, extra initiative and lower maintenance among other differences.

Firstly, JTAS is not a deep treatment of a particular aspect of the rules or world; and articles there can be held to a somewhat lesser standard than the World Builders Handbook or High Guard. JTAS articles are not foundational to the system.

Secondly, if a brief summary/sketch of a particular race- or setting- specific topic is presented, then it is fine if that summary has variations that apply to that specific setting; the foundations are not affected. Take the ships (or subsector generation, or speculative trade, or robots, or vehicles, or weapons, or cybernetic augments, or etc) in the Core Rules; how they are put together is simpler than how ship-design is handled in High Guard -- and so some variations in core-rules ships are acceptable. But High Guard is a deep dive into ship building, it is the exemplar, the foundational work -- and if there is ever a 'High Guard: Luriani', then the differences from the standard High Guard system need to make sense in context of both the entire universe, and in comparison to all the other possible Luriani ship designs. Droyne ships are different; Aslan ships are different; Vargr ships are different, etc. But all of those designs fit consistently within a system which is well defined.

 

[MasterGwydion]

That is very rules-light, non-simulationist. Nothing wrong with that, lots of folks have fun that way; but people who buy rulebooks with systems that are supposed to work to add color or verisimilitude to the world, or provide deeper workings to underpin events and agendas in their game world -- those people are going to want rules that really do work; or else, why are they spending money?

If everything is always all-rule-zero-all-the-time, then there is no need to spend money on dice, character sheets, or anything else. I would hope that a rulebook publisher would appreciate that point of view; and so the Mercenary box (including the Field Catalog) was disappointing to me.

Others may disagree, of course.

The Mercenary box was the worst thing I have bought from Mongoose, ever. IMO, the lowest-quality thing that have ever put out.