Mercenary, Heavy Weapons.

[far-trader]

Are your Ewoks a major or a minor OTU race ? :lol:

Extinct

Though actually, according to some rumours I've heard, I would have and have been playing with doing up the original Lucas Ewok concept. You thought they were bad in the movie kicking the Empire's butt? Apparently they got cutiefied for the movie. I'd rather have had them as not just effective but scary.

 

[Xoph]

I heard that they were originally supposed to be Wookiees; this is why Endor is so similar to Kashyyyk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wookiee

 

[rust]

I heard that they were originally supposed to be Wookiees ...

This is what the OTU really needs: Cute, scary Wookie dwarves. :lol:

 

[Myrm]

I want low-tech heavy weapons!

Just how low-tech?

Trebuchets! Proper job!

 

[-Daniel-]

Equipment is basically what I wanted the book for.

Then that is the issue - this is not an equipment book. That comes later.

Thank you for clearing thsi up. Then I will pass on this book and save for the equipment book.

Thanks Again.

Daniel

 

[Jame Rowe]

I want low-tech heavy weapons!

Just how low-tech?

TL-0, TL-1, TL-2, TL-3. Stone age through medieval/renaissance.

 

[atpollard]

TL-0, TL-1, TL-2, TL-3. Stone age through medieval/renaissance.

I'd like to see that, too, but it sure doesn't sound like it belongs in 'Mercenary'.

 

[rust]

TL-0, TL-1, TL-2, TL-3. Stone age through medieval/renaissance.

I'd like to see that, too, but it sure doesn't sound like it belongs in 'Mercenary'.

Golan 2072 has written some very interesting material of that kind, but
I do not want to link it without his permission.

Golan ?

Edit.: Oops, it is in this thread here on the forum, too ...
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=36738

 

[Vile]

TL-0, TL-1, TL-2, TL-3. Stone age through medieval/renaissance.

I'd like to see that, too, but it sure doesn't sound like it belongs in 'Mercenary'.

No, you're right. That'll be Book 9: Barbarian. 8)

 

[spinwardpirate]

Heh... I'd snatch that book up in a second.

 

[Alan Hume]

You could ask Martin J. Docherty
I like the book
but the hardware section spoils it utterly
completely non Traveller to my eyes
and no SMG's!!

What were they thinking?!!

 

[rust]

What were they thinking?!!

That the people who will play Traveller in other settings than the OTU
might want some non-OTU weapons, too ?

 

[RandyT0001]

What were they thinking?!!

That the people who will play Traveller in other settings than the OTU
might want some non-OTU weapons, too ?

How long before we see an OTU adventure or merc ticket written under the Mongoose banner by some uninformed, unknowing author who has read Mercenary and thinks these weapons are part of the OTU and we get them introduced into the OTU in the adventure/ticket? What we need is for somebody to go through the weapons in Mercenary and then post a thread of the weapons therein that are historically OTU and those that are not. This would help new authors and Mongoose maintain the OTU purity. Knowing that Mongoose has alot of projects and product lines they need some body that can devote themselves to maintaining OTU purity and canon from encroachment by items/ideas from other scifi settings (like mecha from Battletech, widespread transhumanist tech from SJG's Transhuman Space, etc.). Mongoose needs a dedicated person who is very knowledgeable (The author of the Traveller Core Rulebook really isn't qualified IMO based on the core rulebook for various reasons. It's a good rulebook but there were several major departures from previous Traveller rulesets that made it obvious that the aurthor really didn't do thorough research before writing it.) in the OTU to serve as line editor.

 

[rust]

To observe OTU canon will be the job of the authors who will write the
OTU supplements, I think.

The Traveller core books were not written for the OTU setting, they are
the basic rules for all future Traveller settings, not for the OTU alone.
Therefore I consider it as quite normal and to be expected that there
are differences between the core books and the OTU.

 

[JimG]

...maintaining OTU purity and canon...

Phrases like this make me cringe... I'm picturing CT grognards in black uniforms showing up a various authors houses...

As far as I can tell from the discussions here and on other forums, each version of Traveller has changed the OTU and introduced contradictions with prior canon. There have even been extended arguments about what constitutes canon.

I don't think the OTU purity you want to maintain actually exists..

 

[rust]

I don't think the OTU purity you want to maintain actually exists..

Oh, it does. There is just the minor problem that each of the canon purists
has his own pure OTU canon, and that flamewars are started once the less
relaxed purists begin to compare their pure OTUs.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

and no SMG's!!

The autocarbine...

What we need is for somebody to go through the weapons in Mercenary and then post a thread of the weapons therein that are historically OTU and those that are not.

Why is Traveller so resistant to any form of change at all? For this to be a living game it has to evolve and change and do things differently.

I don't want a game fossilised in 1977 or 1983.

There is absolutely nothing in the weapons section that without changing a word here or there breaks OTU canon. In fact you don't even need to change any words really. Are we to believe if something hasn't already been mentioned in the OTU then it can't exist?

If you don't like spinning discs: fine. Change it to something else.

When I've argued in the past that I think the UWP is inadequate because it doesn't give enough info for anyone's OTU to be consistent with anyone elses, let alone published stuff, I get told Traveller is all about the ref filling in the blanks and doing it themselves and using their imagination. OK, fine. So now Mercenary comes out lots of folk are up in arms because they don't particularly like a word here and there. So use that imagination and tweak it to your own liking.

And I have no idea what the fuss is over artillery battledress. I've always assumed such stuff is implicit in the original description, it's implicit in the inspiration for it (Starship Troopers), and it's cool. So why are people complaining so vehemently?

I'm not saying that Mercenary 08 is perfection embodied. The weapon definitions could do with a bit of polish, and it suffers a little in comparison to the descriptions in the original Mercenary. But considering that all the complaints stem from about 6% of the equipment section, which in itself is only 15% of the book, the phrase "mountain out of molehill" springs to mind. :wink:

 

[EDG]

What we need is for somebody to go through the weapons in Mercenary and then post a thread of the weapons therein that are historically OTU and those that are not.

Do you really think that the weapons described in the OTU so far are the only ones that exist? That in 10,000 worlds (plus loads more outside the Imperium) nobody has ever come up with anything different (i.e. the additional weapons from Mercenary)?

 

[Infojunky]

What we need is for somebody to go through the weapons in Mercenary and then post a thread of the weapons therein that are historically OTU and those that are not.

Do you really think that the weapons described in the OTU so far are the only ones that exist? That in 10,000 worlds (plus loads more outside the Imperium) nobody has ever come up with anything different (i.e. the additional weapons from Mercenary)?

My problem with the weapons in Mercenary is in nomenclature, confusing a howitzer (a large indirect fire weapon) with a Anti-tank gun (in artillery terms a direct fire weapon) coupled with that is the lack of comprehension difference in scales between personal weapons and artillery.

I really don't mind the inclusion of the Shuriken catapult. Heck, I probably will add in Gyrocs/bolters.

 

[CosmicGamer]

..