Hot Rodding is dead?

[MasterGwydion]

Not by a refit.


I have no idea how this modification or rebuilding is done, but it's not covered by the refit rule. Presumably it's a more extensive process than a mere refit?

Me neither, but it is a contradiction that Mongoose ought to get rid of. My opinion only.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Me neither, but it is a contradiction that Mongoose ought to get rid of. My opinion only.

I have no idea where this idea came from.

Under LBB2 a Free Trader could not be modified into a Far Trader, as it would need a new hull. An A2 Far Trader could of course be modified into an A1, something like a Free Trader with some wasted drive space, as described in CT S7, p27.


But again, what we can do is not limited by the refit rule, we can do more (I call it rebuilding) but have no rule to describe how.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I have no idea where this idea came from.

Under LBB2 a Free Trader could not be modified into a Far Trader, as it would need a new hull. An A2 Far Trader could of course be modified into an A1, something like a Free Trader with some wasted drive space, as described in CT S7, p27.


But again, what we can do is not limited by the refit rule, we can do more (I call it rebuilding) but have no rule to describe how.

Can We do more if there are no rules for it? House rules, obviously, but I shouldn't have to make up house rules to make the content from Mongoose not disagree with the content from Mongoose.

 

[MasterGwydion]

What is the reasoning for even breaking ships down into "Main Compartment" and "Engineering Compartment"? What benefit does this provide the game?

 

[Condottiere]

1. Possibly, location of a bulkhead.

2. Radiation protection?

 

[MasterGwydion]

1. Possibly, location of a bulkhead.

2. Radiation protection?

What benefit does that provide the game? As far as I am aware, there are no differences in radiation protection between the Main Compartment and the Engineering Compartment.

 

[Condottiere]

I'm just speculating.


Leaky Reactor Core: Roll 2D when the ship jumps. On a 12, all crew receive 2D x 20 rads

 

[Vormaerin]

I have no idea where this idea came from.

Under LBB2 a Free Trader could not be modified into a Far Trader, as it would need a new hull. An A2 Far Trader could of course be modified into an A1, something like a Free Trader with some wasted drive space, as described in CT S7, p27.


But again, what we can do is not limited by the refit rule, we can do more (I call it rebuilding) but have no rule to describe how.

I think it came from GURPS Interstellar Wars.

As you are doubtless aware, originally the Free Trader and Far Trader were two different hulls (Beowulf & Empress Marava). There was also mention of Empress Marava's that were downgraded to Free Traders. Pretty sure the original intention of the J2 Beowulfs was a variant build, not a refit. But the wording was imprecise and someone started claiming it was an upgrade instead of a separate ship using the same exterior hull.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Can We do more if there are no rules for it? House rules, obviously, but I shouldn't have to make up house rules to make the content from Mongoose not disagree with the content from Mongoose.

'twas ever thus.

CT had modular cutters without any rules for modular spacecraft.
MgT2 has podular cruisers without any rules pods.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I think it came from GURPS Interstellar Wars.

As you are doubtless aware, originally the Free Trader and Far Trader were two different hulls (Beowulf & Empress Marava). There was also mention of Empress Marava's that were downgraded to Free Traders. Pretty sure the original intention of the J2 Beowulfs was a variant build, not a refit. But the wording was imprecise and someone started claiming it was an upgrade instead of a separate ship using the same exterior hull.

Thank you, but as far as I can see GT lists the J-2 Hero class as the ancestor of the J-1 Beowulf class?

Even if the Hero (Siigiizuni) class is J-2 in GT Interstellar War and J-1 in GT Starships...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Actually that’s not how the two paragraphs read according to grammar

OK, please show me the rule of English grammar that says that a sentence in one paragraph cannot refer to a sentence in another paragraph?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Also the first Freetrader to far trader refit was MegaTraveller.

Thank you, can you show where?

I can't find it, I only find the J-1 Beowulf and J-2 Empress Marava.:

 

[Sigtrygg]

A comprehensive revision of High Guard is once again becoming more and more desirable.

The inconsistencies, gaps, and stuff that just doesn't make any real world sense is almost to the point that it is getting in the way.

 

[tytalan]

Thank you, can you show where?

I can't find it, I only find the J-1 Beowulf and J-2 Empress Marava.:
View attachment 3980

Considering it not in that book and I don’t want to spend my time digging out my MegaTraveller book believe whatever you want. But here the key CT High Guard uses a very different construct methodology so using it to justify your argument is irrelevant.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In English grammar paragraphs has topics and everything in the paragraph is related to that topic if not it starts a new paragraph English 2nd grade.

There are some recommendations and rules of thumb, but no hard fixed rules. Note "a clear paragraph should", not "every paragraph must".

Purdue says:

Listed here are some rules of thumb to use when paragraphing. As your writing improves, you'll be able to break these "rules" to meet your own needs. Until then, these suggestions can be helpful.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_...paragraphs_and_paragraphing/paragraphing.html


Cambridge has this to say:

A paragraph usually contains more than one sentence and it is usually about one topic.

The first sentence in a paragraph is sometimes called the key or topic sentence because it gives us the key to what the paragraph will be about. The other sentences usually relate to the key sentence. There is usually a conclusion in the final sentence of a paragraph and sometimes there is a link to the next paragraph.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/paragraphs

You’ll notice the one sentence specifically refers to the other paragraph “Armour and other parts of the ship integral to the hull (such as configuration or reinforced structure) cannot be changed under any refit.” The bolded text is a reference to something outside of the paragraph.

Great, so why is it impossible to refer to a major refit in that paragraph, if the sentence you just quoted can do that?


This

HG'2022, p72:
There are two different types of refit that can be used. Major refits cover changes in power plant, manoeuvre or jump drive, as well as changes to spinal mounts or launch facilities (such as launch tubes). Removing these components costs 0.5 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and then installing new ones costs 1.5 times the cost of the new system. The time this takes is one quarter of the time required to build a new ship of the same size as described in Construction Times on page 8.

Minor refits are changes to any other components aboard the ship, such as weapon mounts or staterooms. Removing these components costs 0.1 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and installing new ones costs 1.1 times the cost of the new system. This takes one tenth of the time required to build a new ship of the same size. Armour and other parts of the ship integral to the hull (such as configuration or reinforced structure) cannot be changed under any refit. Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size but they can be reduced. Other components can be increased in size if there is tonnage available.

Is not obviously different from:

MgT1 TCS, p16:
There are two different types of refit that can be used. Major refits cover changes in power plant, manoeuvre or jump drive, as well as changes to spinal mounts or launch facilities (such as launch tubes). Removing these components costs 0.5 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and then installing new ones costs 1.5 times the cost of the new system. The time this takes is one quarter of the time required to build a new ship of the same size.

Minor refits are changes to any other components aboard the ship, such as weapon mounts or staterooms. Removing these components costs 0.1 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and then installing new ones costs 1.1 times the cost of the new system. The time this takes is one tenth of the time required to build a new ship of the same size.

Armour and other parts of the ship integral to the hull (such as configuration or reinforced structure) cannot be changed under any refit. Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size though they may be reduced. Other components may be increased in size if there is tonnage available.

Even with the extra paragraph break.


Paragraphs are used for clarity, they don't generally change the meaning of the text. They certainly do not change an explicit reference to "major refit" to mean "minor refit".

This means just what it says:

Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size but they can be reduced.

It does not mean that they can be increased in size...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Anything not specifically banned is doable according to the core rules that true for all RPGs

Great, then I'll take the Warp-drive doing 100 Pc/h without using fuel...

But some things are specifically banned:

Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size but they can be reduced.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If it did refer to a major refit there would be an indication there isn’t.

There is a slight indication that it's specifically about major refits, is says so explicitly:

Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size but they can be reduced.

You keep pointing out things like usually and rule of thumb that’s just justification for your refusal to accept that in mongoose T2 refits are different. Also this is a rule section of the text which means technical writing the usually and rule of thumb are for creative writing. I’ve done both while in college.

English grammar just isn't that strict when it comes to paragraphs.

You keep trying to insert paragraph break which completely changes the meaning of that paragraph but it also changes the meaning of this part two “ Other components can be increased in size if there is tonnage available.”

I'm not trying or inserting anything, I'm just quoting another Mongoose rule book with the exact same rule, but with a different paragraph division. That obviously does not change the meaning of the text dramatically.

Because as has been pointed out it’s not just the free/far trader that has an engine increase there are other ships in the mongoose T2 catalog that have such a refit.

I don't know how they did it, it just wasn't a refit...
Just as I don't have any rules for podular cruisers, yet they do exist.

 

[Condottiere]

Generally speaking, for commercial ships, it's usually just better to scrap it if it becomes obsolete, because it's more about the cost(s) of ownership.

For starwarships, there are other considerations, such as time, resources, operational constrictions, and artificial limitations, that would force a navy to massively overhaul their (major) units.

 

[Condottiere]

Again, it depends on factors that are pertinent to the user/owner.

If I had to support ye military industrial complex, there would be regular construction of increasingly, if incrementally, improved variants of the previous batch.

Between the rock of decreasing infrastructure, and the hard reality of budget crunches, the compromise would be extensive refits.

 

[Condottiere]

You pass it on to a client state.

Minor refits are valid, since in our case they would be mostly electronics, and weapon upgrades.

The spinal mount would remain, since you'd be juggling the cost of up factoring against that of a new starwarship.