# High Guard Update 2022 - News

Geir said:
Geir said:
Yeah, that bothered me until I wrapped my brain around it:

You get a DM+ salvo size.
So one missile is +1.
So for one missile, roll a 7, plus 1 for the salvo, makes 8, Effect 0, but it was still a single missile with a 7, so it missed.
Does that make sense or am I just muddying it further?

That’s not really how I understand or play missiles…. I may be wrong, this is my take:
Each missile in a salvo grants DM+1 to hit. Thus a single missile will effectively hit on 7+ (or better, depending on relative TLs, but let’s ignore that for now). This means that a salvo of 100 missiles get DM+100 to hit.

The damage roll for missiles, however, ignores the hit effect. Effect is reset, and becomes equal to the number of surviving missiles in the salvo, and this effect is multiplied by individual missile damage. Since effect resets, it can never become 0 for 0 damage, since that would imply that 0 missiles hit the target. If a single missile survives point defense and everything, the damage multiplier is 1x, despite getting a hit effect of 0.
I think the only point of disagreement is whether that single missile hits on a 7+. I say no, like everything else, you actually need an 8+ : the +1 for one missile is there to make the math easier and to emulate a 7 missing, and then the rules work as written with Effect 0 being a close shave and not a single missile hit. (Except Smart seems to always get a +1 or more to hit (except at that really close/adjacent range where you would expect it to work) - but let's ignore that for now).

But... what this points out is that the rules could have been written more clearly to indicate intent and effect (with the latter both capitalised and not).

I picked up my rule book to read the actual rule rather than discuss based on memory - and you’re right, it never says to reset like I’ve used it, it just says multiply by effect (up to no. of missiles), so an effect of 0 indicates 0 damage… my bad.

Arkathan said:
Geir said:
Yeah, that bothered me until I wrapped my brain around it:

You get a DM+ salvo size.
So one missile is +1.
So for one missile, roll a 7, plus 1 for the salvo, makes 8, Effect 0, but it was still a single missile with a 7, so it missed.
Does that make sense or am I just muddying it further?

That’s not really how I understand or play missiles…. I may be wrong, this is my take:
Each missile in a salvo grants DM+1 to hit. Thus a single missile will effectively hit on 7+ (or better, depending on relative TLs, but let’s ignore that for now). This means that a salvo of 100 missiles get DM+100 to hit.

The damage roll for missiles, however, ignores the hit effect. Effect is reset, and becomes equal to the number of surviving missiles in the salvo, and this effect is multiplied by individual missile damage. Since effect resets, it can never become 0 for 0 damage, since that would imply that 0 missiles hit the target. If a single missile survives point defense and everything, the damage multiplier is 1x, despite getting a hit effect of 0.

You need an 8 to hit. Geir illustrated that perfectly. And the rule takes the miss into account.
A near miss of a single missile is a miss. A near miss of a cluster lets some accidentally hit. Like a scattergun.

Yeah, looks like you’re right.

MongooseMatt said:
A hot bit of news for you all.

Thank you for this news. I'm looking forward the High Guard Update 2022 and I'm glad to hear there are ship retrofit or customization rules on the way. Is there any more information that you could share regarding the expected date of the product release or tantalizing bits of news regarding this update?

About to start layout, well, now-ish, and should have some proper dates soon! A lot of the artwork is already done so likely to be not that long!

Arkathan said:
You need an 8 to hit. Geir illustrated that perfectly. And the rule takes the miss into account.
A near miss of a single missile is a miss. A near miss of a cluster lets some accidentally hit. Like a scattergun.
Yeah, looks like you’re right.

The origin and intent of the missile system can be followed here:
Nerhesi said:
2D -pilot evasion - evasion software +smartTLdifference +# of missiles in salvo. EFFECT = # of Missiles that hit.

One aspect that I think makes Traveller fleets different from the generic.... is the fact that a fleet cannot guarantee that it will down-jump at the same time/space thus making the battle Rider a useful way of getting several hulls to arrive together reducing the risk of defeat in detail.

Hopefully the rules update can add something about squadron scatter and the implied need for good astrogation/naval tactics skill rolls.

AndyBigwood said:
One aspect that I think makes Traveller fleets different from the generic.... is the fact that a fleet cannot guarantee that it will down-jump at the same time/space thus making the battle Rider a useful way of getting several hulls to arrive together reducing the risk of defeat in detail.

Hopefully the rules update can add something about squadron scatter and the implied need for good astrogation/naval tactics skill rolls.

See:
2nd edition High Guard page: 14 Synchronised Jumps

I got the updated Core Book and... shuddered at the overuse of orange. The pages looked garish. Since I barely had opened the book, I put it back on my store's shelf. It did sell within a few days, remarkable for how much D&D rules my local area.

I hope the Highguard book does not have such colors.

I don't see page tabs as garish overuse.
That seems a pretty superficial reason not to support a game that you are obviously somewhat invested in.

Arkathan said:
I don't see page tabs as garish overuse.

I don't have a problem with the tabs. It's the splashes of orange as background to text on many pages I find garish.

That seems a pretty superficial reason not to support a game that you are obviously somewhat invested in.

I didn't like the art style of the updated book, the orange just added to it. I don't buy every book just to support the game, that's a good waste of cash buying things I don't need or want. I buy what I want. I don't want the update book as is and I don't need it. The original MGT2 core book is good enough, I'll print the updates and have them available.

[/quote]I didn't like the art style of the updated book, the orange just added to it. I don't buy every book just to support the game, that's a good waste of cash buying things I don't need or want. I buy what I want. I don't want the update book as is and I don't need it. The original MGT2 core book is good enough, I'll print the updates and have them available.[/quote]

I agree. I am not a fan of the graphics style for MGT2 nor MGT2u2, but I am all in anyway because it is Traveller. It seems that all games modern RPG editions D&D, Pathfinder, Traveller, etc. are leaning heavily on comic book/anime art and graphic design. I am old and old school. Just gimme a wall of text and some line drawings now and then.

I prefer the font and graphics of MGT1. That design reminded me a lot of Classic Traveller, but with a font and layout I found easier to read.

I can respect that. Elegance is nice. It was one of the aspects of Classic Traveller that I really loved. However, we grogs aren't the only people to whom these products are being sold. The younger audience is accustomed to higher production values and full-color art. I suspect that I'm as old as most of you, and I'm a big fan of the new approach. As they say, there's no accounting for taste.

paltrysum said:
I can respect that. Elegance is nice. It was one of the aspects of Classic Traveller that I really loved. However, we grogs aren't the only people to whom these products are being sold. The younger audience is accustomed to higher production values and full-color art. I suspect that I'm as old as most of you, and I'm a big fan of the new approach. As they say, there's no accounting for taste.

I am red/green colorblind, so I only care about colors when I have to print stuff. So, anything that you guys foresee people wanting to print out like stat blocks or maps or some such thing, maybe make it B&W printer-friendly? This would work for Me, but I am also old, older than Traveller, but younger than some of it's fans......lol...

Definitive life support costs, clearly spelled out across all known options.

Condottiere said:
Definitive life support costs, clearly spelled out across all known options.

Biosphere and an Agricultural Manufacturing plant on each ship = no Life Support costs for less space on a small ship than a barbette takes by TL-13

Is this book useful or needed for 2300?

feld said:
Is this book useful or needed for 2300?

I have no idea, as I have never played, nor read the 2300 material, but I am curious about it.

feld said:
Is this book useful or needed for 2300?

Aerospace Engineer's Handbook should have all you need for 2300AD!

Arkathan said:
In the eighties, the US Navy was working (had people working) on systems to convert heat directly to electricity without using thermocouples, just like the fusion engines in BattleTech (the concept, not their results). They also had systems that used a speaker to power a refrigerator's chill cycle.
In the 1980's, today's computers were beyond comprehension. They thought a hyperspace fax machine was cool. Who would have thought everyone would have a device that can out-process a Cray in their pockets?
The internet? Cyberspace, where programs took on physical forms and locations to interact with techno-arcane users, instead of the much more useful and user friendly implementation.
On the other hand, we're still waiting on flying cars. Who knows what thousands of years of tech advancement will do when forty years ago couldn't see today?
Again, Mongoose is calling it stealth but having it cover all manner of countermeasures. The point of the exercise is to have their weapons miss your ship. Don't get caught up in semantics.
Maybe the revised sensor rules will "fix" some of it with something other than unobtainium and handwavium.

I'm not arguing against simplification, just that it make some basic sense and fits within the realm of reasonableness. I've never been one of those who don't believe it's possible to be stealthy in space. Sensor and electronics and other advances have routinely rendered "impossible!" probable. And, as the impossible becomes the norm, changes are reflected to try and shift it back the other direction.

My biggest issue is about the idea of having to add handwavium because the underlying system wasn't put into place to start. Since we already have some things defined within science and operations, just scale them up to fit the tech/time jump.

phavoc said:
Arkathan said:
In the eighties, the US Navy was working (had people working) on systems to convert heat directly to electricity without using thermocouples, just like the fusion engines in BattleTech (the concept, not their results). They also had systems that used a speaker to power a refrigerator's chill cycle.
In the 1980's, today's computers were beyond comprehension. They thought a hyperspace fax machine was cool. Who would have thought everyone would have a device that can out-process a Cray in their pockets?
The internet? Cyberspace, where programs took on physical forms and locations to interact with techno-arcane users, instead of the much more useful and user friendly implementation.
On the other hand, we're still waiting on flying cars. Who knows what thousands of years of tech advancement will do when forty years ago couldn't see today?
Again, Mongoose is calling it stealth but having it cover all manner of countermeasures. The point of the exercise is to have their weapons miss your ship. Don't get caught up in semantics.
Maybe the revised sensor rules will "fix" some of it with something other than unobtainium and handwavium.

I'm not arguing against simplification, just that it make some basic sense and fits within the realm of reasonableness. I've never been one of those who don't believe it's possible to be stealthy in space. Sensor and electronics and other advances have routinely rendered "impossible!" probable. And, as the impossible becomes the norm, changes are reflected to try and shift it back the other direction.

My biggest issue is about the idea of having to add handwavium because the underlying system wasn't put into place to start. Since we already have some things defined within science and operations, just scale them up to fit the tech/time jump.
I really don't look at the current stealth mechanic as handwavium. It simply is not explained. Like trying to explain quantum physics to Isaac Newton's teachers.
Just like we can cancel sound waves and bend light waves in specific materials to hide what's behind it, active and passive countermeasures advance with tech level, and make it easier to hide your ship from those not equipped or skilled enough to look for it.
Every Sci-Fi system has a "stealth" mechanic in it.

Replies
0
Views
416
Replies
4
Views
420
Replies
2
Views
318
Replies
9
Views
346
Replies
0
Views
309