Modules for the Modular Cutter

Using LBB2 rules its pretty easy, since smallcraft take up no extra volume in ships.
Just extrapolate from the thirty ton module carrier.
...
Lots of potential, all the rules that are needed are already there.
If that is how you want your house rules, sure.

The cutter module is external, and drive performance is recalculated when dropped, i.e. the volume of the craft changes...
Not carrying a module affects the structural integrity of the craft.
Fuel in modules can presumably be used directly, fuel in carried small craft can't.


Cutter modules don't work like carried small craft, at least by default. By RAW there are no rules for how generic modules work, or how to design them.
 
You complain about house rules - ony the postulated craft are my design the rest is pure rules as written - and then immediately write house rules of your own.

An empty cutter module is 30t and is to be found on the Vehicles table. The rules state you can install anything from the vehicles table on a ship, ergo a cutter module can be installed on a ship.

"OPTIONAL COMPONENTS
The following optional components can be included in design plans, or may be acquired for later installation on a vessel...

Ship's Vehicles: A ship may have one or more subordinate vehicles specified as part of the ship's equipment, and tonnage may be devoted to the permanent stowage or hangarage of the vehicles. The vehicles list indicates those vehicles and small craft commonly available..."

1738604163712.png

So ignoring by "house rules" for a moment you can put an empty cutter module in any smallcraft or ship that has 30t that can be allocated at construction or "or may be acquired for later installation on a vessel"

So by the rules as written you could configure a slow pinnace to carry a 30t cutter module, while a shuttle could carry two of them and still have 11t
 
Last edited:
You complain about house rules - ony the postulated craft are my design the rest is pure rules as written - and then immediately write house rules of your own.
What house rules did I use?

An empty cutter module is 30t and is to be found on the Vehicles table. The rules state you can install anything from the vehicles table on a ship, ergo a cutter module can be installed on a ship.
Yes, it can be carried in a hangar, like any other small craft, as done in the Mercenary Cruiser.

That is not what the cutter is doing... The Cutter carries it as an integral part of the craft, but externally: The Cutter recalculates drive performance when not carrying any module, like drop tanks.
JTAS#5, p6:
Performance of the cutter is affected by its load. Normally accelerations of up to 4G can be achieved (with new or well-maintained maneuver drives). By operating the cutter without a module, the boat is reduced to thirty tons displacement; operating under such conditions, it can easily make 6G. Such use is not recommended however, as the single structural strut connecting the bridge and drives is not strong enough to withstand such abuse for long.

The Modular Cutter is just Gygaxed, like the Annic Nova, without any rule support. Don't we call that Rule 0? Or, if I do it, a house rule?



So by the rules as written you could configure a slow boat to carry a 30t cutter module, while a shuttle could carry two of them and still have 11t
I sincerely doubt a 30 Dt Slow Boat (with 19.9 Dt free space) can carry a 30 Dt module in a hangar...
Of course a Shuttle can carry two 30 Dt modules or Slow Boats in hangars, like any other spacecraft.
The Shuttle is not suddenly a ~35 Dt open frame doing 6 G when not carrying any modules.

If we had rules for grapples (clamps) and external craft in CT, a Slow Boat could presumably become a 60 Dt carrier at 1 G or so.
 
Last edited:
What is the purpose of the docking clamps in the light fighter module in High Guard? Seems to me that you would be better fitting 4x 6 ton fighters in dedicated docking spaces at 7 (or 6.6 tons as small craft use fractional tons) per bay and ditch the docking clamps. You potentially gain some space and free access to the fighters, they are quicker to launch (1d minutes rather then d3 rounds - assuming these are space rounds).
If small craft use fractional tons instead of a minimum of 1 ton additional why do 4 ton air rafts and prospecting buggies have 5 ton docking spaces?
 
That is not what the cutter is doing... The Cutter carries it as an integral part of the craft, but externally: The Cutter recalculates drive performance when not carrying any module, like drop tanks.
High Guard 2022 page 44 "Up ro 75% of the ship's internal tonnage can be designated as modular."

Only if the module includes docking clamps or connections for a drop tank or something else external does it appear that it would affect streamlining or thrust.

JTAS 5 page 6 - refers to "modular inserts" appearing to be internal (to me). Also says "Modules are easily removed and replaced and do not interfere with the ships streamlining".
 
If small craft use fractional tons instead of a minimum of 1 ton additional why do 4 ton air rafts and prospecting buggies have 5 ton docking spaces?
Maybe that is my extrapolation since small craft in the Small Craft catalogue have non-integer tonnage for various options (plants, M-drives, Fuel, tow-cables, armour, emergency power systems etc.), I don't see the need to round anything else up either.
 
Last edited:
Dimensions have to be configured to fit into the allocated volume.

Anything that relies on structural integrity, like spinal mounts and manoeuvre drives, would be excluded.

Command centres, you'd need to know how they are integrated into the hull.
 
Maybe that is my extrapolation since small craft in the Small Craft catalogue have non-integer tonnage for various options (plants, M-drives, Fuel, tow-cables, armour, emergency power systems etc.), I don't see the need to round anything else up either.
There is no rounding specified for drives, only fuel and Docking Spaces:
HG'22, p18:
Other power plants require fuel tankage equal to 10% of their size (rounding up, minimum 1 ton) per month of operation. This provides enough fuel for the power plant for a month (four weeks).
HG'22, p61:
Docking space consumes an amount of tonnage equal to that of the largest ship to be docked, plus 10% (round up to the nearest ton). Use shipping size for vehicles, as detailed in the Traveller Core Rulebook and the Vehicle Handbook.
 
What house rules did I use?
Where in CT is hull integrity?
Yes, it can be carried in a hangar, like any other small craft, as done in the Mercenary Cruiser.
Another house rule, the rules as written don't mention a hanger.
That is not what the cutter is doing... The Cutter carries it as an integral part of the craft, but externally: The Cutter recalculates drive performance when not carrying any module, like drop tanks.
Not in LBB2 - that is a rule introduced later after HG came along.
The Modular Cutter is just Gygaxed, like the Annic Nova, without any rule support. Don't we call that Rule 0? Or, if I do it, a house rule?
We call it rules as written, since they are all there in black and white.
I sincerely doubt a 30 Dt Slow Boat (with 19.9 Dt free space) can carry a 30 Dt module in a hangar...
A bit of a low blow, you and I both know I meant the slow pinnace :)
Of course a Shuttle can carry two 30 Dt modules or Slow Boats in hangars, like any other spacecraft.
The Shuttle is not suddenly a ~35 Dt open frame doing 6 G when not carrying any modules.
If you apply the same reasoning as was later retrofitted to the modular cutter you can.
If we had rules for grapples (clamps) and external craft in CT, a Slow Boat could presumably become a 60 Dt carrier at 1 G or so.
But we don't, so it isn't. It carries a module in much the same way as Thunderbird 2 or a S1999 Eagle. There are too many illustrations to doubt this. Now if you could remove the spine of the Eagle or collapse it down after dropping the module... but e don't have collapsible spurs either.
 
High Guard 2022 page 44 "Up ro 75% of the ship's internal tonnage can be designated as modular."
Agreed, MgT2 modules are internal.

JTAS 5 page 6 - refers to "modular inserts" appearing to be internal (to me). Also says "Modules are easily removed and replaced and do not interfere with the ships streamlining".
Except:
JTAS#5, p6:
Performance of the cutter is affected by its load. Normally accelerations of up to 4G can be achieved (with new or well-maintained maneuver drives). By operating the cutter without a module, the boat is reduced to thirty tons displacement; operating under such conditions, it can easily make 6G. Such use is not recommended however, as the single structural strut connecting the bridge and drives is not strong enough to withstand such abuse for long.
p7 shows an illustration where the module would be:
Skärmavbild 2025-02-03 kl. 21.17.png
Edit:
CT A7, p22:
8. Fighter Frame. This framework module contains attachments to hold four 6-ton fighters. The module, as installed on a cutter, allows quick launch of all four fighters for the protection of the cruiser. Unlike the other modules, the fighter framework module is not streamlined and the cutter mounting the module cannot enter atmosphere. MCr2.0.
Has to be external if it affects streamlining?


It's an obvious version of the Space 1999 spacecraft Eagle with central external modules:
spdd2662.jpg
 
Last edited:
The issue might be, how far is the module, and it's spacecraft components, integrated with the primary hull, and it's systems.
 
Where in CT is hull integrity?
Again:
JTAS#5, p6:
Performance of the cutter is affected by its load. Normally accelerations of up to 4G can be achieved (with new or well-maintained maneuver drives). By operating the cutter without a module, the boat is reduced to thirty tons displacement; operating under such conditions, it can easily make 6G. Such use is not recommended however, as the single structural strut connecting the bridge and drives is not strong enough to withstand such abuse for long.


Another house rule, the rules as written don't mention a hanger.
You just quoted it:
LBB2'81, p15:
Ship's Vehicles: A ship may have one or more subordinate vehicles specified as part of the ship's equipment, and tonnage may be devoted to the permanent stowage or hangarage of the vehicles. The vehicles list indicates those vehicles and small craft commonly available.

Not in LBB2 - that is a rule introduced later after HG came along.
No, in JTAS#5, before LBB2'81 I believe.
JTAS#5, p6:
Performance of the cutter is affected by its load. Normally accelerations of up to 4G can be achieved (with new or well-maintained maneuver drives). By operating the cutter without a module, the boat is reduced to thirty tons displacement; operating under such conditions, it can easily make 6G. Such use is not recommended however, as the single structural strut connecting the bridge and drives is not strong enough to withstand such abuse for long.


We call it rules as written, since they are all there in black and white.
Sure the Modular Cutter is, but there are no design rules so I can design a RAW modular spacecraft of my own, which is my point all along.

The Annic Nova also exists by RAW, but I have not seen any design rules for Collectors or using small craft as M-Drives.


A bit of a low blow, you and I both know I meant the slow pinnace :)
OK, but I wrote it before I checked LBB2, so I did not understand that immediately, sorry.

If you apply the same reasoning as was later retrofitted to the modular cutter you can.
By RAW? Where can I find those rules?

But we don't, so it isn't. It carries a module in much the same way as Thunderbird 2 or a S1999 Eagle. There are too many illustrations to doubt this. Now if you could remove the spine of the Eagle or collapse it down after dropping the module... but e don't have collapsible spurs either.
Agreed, we don't have design rules for carrying modules externally, either for a Slow Boat or a Modular Cutter.
Agreed, the Modular Cutter carries the module externally.
Hence, the Modular Cutter is not designed by RAW and I can't design a similar craft by RAW.
 
Agreed, MgT2 modules are internal.


Except:

p7 shows an illustration where the module would be:
View attachment 3711

It's an obvious version of the Space 1999 spacecraft Eagle with central external modules:
spdd2662.jpg
Oddly enough, I found a model Space:1999 eagle at the back of the garage last month. Mine from about 50 years ago! Went straight into my terrain box for use in a future traveller game
 
JTAS#5, p6:
Performance of the cutter is affected by its load. Normally accelerations of up to 4G can be achieved (with new or well-maintained maneuver drives). By operating the cutter without a module, the boat is reduced to thirty tons displacement; operating under such conditions, it can easily make 6G. Such use is not recommended however, as the single structural strut connecting the bridge and drives is not strong enough to withstand such abuse for long.
That is pretty odd math though, 50 ton cutter - 30 ton module = 30 ton cutter. Also obsolete. The JTAS version seems to be more a breakaway hull than a module as defined by HG2022. I wonder how redesigning the cutter as breakaway hulls would work? The breakaways would be more expensive but it might be interesting.

I did make note of the Zero G Mining Module in that article as it is interesting (to me). When I get around to it I'll try to write it up under HG 2022 rules. I'll have to see how it fits into a modular survey craft to convert it to a Prospector. One of the comments in the article was about it being used as a ship.

I always did like the Eagle and after coming on the (very brief) fan made Omega 99 recently I did some work on it as a "mini setting" that PCs could come across and have a Eagle design (still working on it) of 100 tons (over sized I'm sure) that has the module as a 60 ton breakaway hull (without propulsion, bridge etc) with the main 40 ton unit designed to carry it. TL 8, prototype .5 g M-Drive and reaction drive for take off and landing on planets. But that is a different topic.
 
The issue might be, how far is the module, and it's spacecraft components, integrated with the primary hull, and it's systems.
We have some hints:
JTAS:
Fuel Skimmer. With this module in place, the cutter can skim hydrogen from a gas giant atmosphere for use by its mother ship as fuel. The skimmer can also be used to dip water from oceans for the same purpose. In the case of unstreamlined mother ships, this module is invaluable. In addition, the skimmer provides the capability of gathering fuel for smaller power plants, for other cutters, for troop installations, and for weapons modules. Capacity: 26 tons (attachments on the module connect this tankage with the 15 ton cutter tankage, allowing simultaneous refuelling of the cutter itself. Base price: MCr 2.0.
I don't know any other mechanism to do this by RAW in CT?

LBB2'81:
The open module is a customizable frame with 30 tons of excess space which can be allocated to passenger couches, fuel, cargo, cabins or staterooms. It costs MCr2.
Since we need a power plant for life support, the Cutter can provide power or at least life support to the module. I don't know any other mechanism to do this by RAW in CT?


My impression is that the module is fully integrated with the Cutter. Anything a small craft can do with interior excess space (LBB2'81, p17), the Cutter can do in a module.
 
So fluff text no rules and no specific "hull integrity". A house rule by you in other words.
You just quoted it:
No, the text says hangarage, not in a hanger. Hangarage could mean any storage space, including a conformal tube. In any case it requires no volume surcharge.
No, in JTAS#5, before LBB2'81 I believe.
LBB:2 doesn't use HG80 paradigms, the JTAS 5 article is the usual MWM making up a bespoke system that isn't in LBB:2 or LBB:5
Sure the Modular Cutter is, but there are no design rules so I can design a RAW modular spacecraft of my own, which is my point all along.
Are there rules for designating a ship with rugged or military drives? You can't build type S scout/couriers without them.
The Annic Nova also exists by RAW, but I have not seen any design rules for Collectors or using small craft as M-Drives.
The Annic Nova has the rules for smallcraft as "drives" - easily adapted. Collectors... ok that one I am at a loss for :)
OK, but I wrote it before I checked LBB2, so I did not understand that immediately, sorry.
It was my stupid mistake, I have no idea whuy I wrote slow boat instead of slow pinnace since I looked them up.
By RAW? Where can I find those rules?
If you apply the same reasoning as was later retrofitted to the modular cutter, if you can designate drives as military/paramilitary
Agreed, we don't have design rules for carrying modules externally, either for a Slow Boat or a Modular Cutter.
Agreed, the Modular Cutter carries the module externally.
Hence, the Modular Cutter is not designed by RAW and I can't design a similar craft by RAW.
Yes you can, the same way you can build a ship with military drives...
as the referee you declare it to be so. Provided you don't go outside the parameters of the other smallcraft what's the problem?
 
So fluff text no rules and no specific "hull integrity". A house rule by you in other words.
I may have paraphrased it. It's printed and as RAW as the crappy life-support in the Scout... Nothing I have made up either way, and not covered by any design rules.


No, the text says hangarage, not in a hanger. Hangarage could mean any storage space, including a conformal tube. In any case it requires no volume surcharge.
Quite, storage space, inside the hull, as all other components. LBB2 never requires any extra tonnage for storage, so that is not surprising.


LBB:2 doesn't use HG80 paradigms, the JTAS 5 article is the usual MWM making up a bespoke system that isn't in LBB:2 or LBB:5
Agreed:
The Modular Cutter is just Gygaxed, like the Annic Nova, without any rule support. Don't we call that Rule 0? Or, if I do it, a house rule?

Are there rules for designating a ship with rugged or military drives? You can't build type S scout/couriers without them.
Sure, there is: You designate the ship as Military or Scout! LBB2 isn't all that complicated or detailed...


The Annic Nova has the rules for smallcraft as "drives" - easily adapted. Collectors... ok that one I am at a loss for :)
Specific rules for the Annic Nova, that doesn't make much physics sense IIRC.
Adapting them to other ships would be a house rule...


It was my stupid mistake, I have no idea whuy I wrote slow boat instead of slow pinnace since I looked them up.
No problem. I should have understood.


If you apply the same reasoning as was later retrofitted to the modular cutter, if you can designate drives as military/paramilitary

Yes you can, the same way you can build a ship with military drives...
as the referee you declare it to be so. Provided you don't go outside the parameters of the other smallcraft what's the problem?
No problem, it's just a house rule...


If there is no cost or down-side, why would I ever build a spacecraft that is not modular? A Free Trader with all fuel and payload in five 30 Dt modules, so I can swap between staterooms and cargo in a few minutes? A Scout with two 30 Dt modules for fuel and payload? It would be very convenient, but not how CT spacecraft are generally built...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top