Request for Official Rules Clarification regarding HighGuard

[Klaus Kipling]

Can we get some official Mongoose clarification on the following rules in High Guard, please?

1. Barrages

2. Fixed mounts for small craft.


1. Barrages

According to the top of p74, HG, we are meant to notate a barrage attack thus:

Total dice of damage (weapon dice x no. of weapons) / weapon type / Individual Weapon Damage in dice.

Therefore 4x 50ton Fusion Gun Bays would be:

20 / fusion gun / 5

Further down p74 is this line of text: "Add up the protection offered by the defenses, and then subtract it from the individual weapon damage score to determine the final DM."

This implies that a barrage attack is rolled like this:

2d6 + Fire Control + Gunner Skill + Individual Weapon Damage Dice + any other bonuses - Range DM - Armour and other defenses - Dodge.

Is this so?

The example later does not do this. IE, it does not add the damage dice of the nuclear missile (2) to the barrage attack as a DM.

Without factoring in Individual Weapon Damage Dice, there is no real differentiation between weapons, in that only the total damage dice are figured. Also, it means high armour is invincible.

Can we get some more explicit clarification as to how the barrage attack is meant to be undertaken?

2. Fixed mounts

On p111 of TMB, it shows that fixed mounts do not require 1ton of fire control.

Yet on p61 of High Guard, it says each fixed mount requires 1ton of fire control, and then refers to p111 of TMB.

Which is correct, as they cannot both be?

 

[BP]

...
2. Fixed mounts

On p111 of TMB, it shows that fixed mounts do not require 1ton of fire control.

Yet on p61 of High Guard, it says each fixed mount requires 1ton of fire control, and then refers to p111 of TMB.

While this is being clarified (i.e. does fixed mount on small craft require 1 ton as opposed to 0 tons for larger craft) - the tonnage for Pop-Up Turret, since it does not have +2, is it 2 regardless of Single/Double/Triple style (very inconsistent use of a table btw)?

 

[Klaus Kipling]

bump...

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Ahem....

 

[Kilgs]

:wink: Good luck.

We could also ask for clarifications/errata to Naval Academy, Healing and a few other things. But we're not gonna get an answer.

 

[apoc527]

Has there been any progress made on understanding Barrage damage? I recall asking the same question around April.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

Apologies, looking into this, missed it the first time. Give us a short while, as we are currently down three members of staff. . .

 

[AndrewW]

Hi guys,

Apologies, looking into this, missed it the first time. Give us a short while, as we are currently down three members of staff. . .

Did you misplace some at GenCon¿

 

[MongooseMatt]

Did you misplace some at GenCon¿

No, but they were missing when I came back. . .

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

When the Cats away, the Mice will play (or the Mongooses...).

Hope it isn't more Swine Flu...

 

[Claybor]

Oh, Mongoose has a few openings? Sign me up!

 

[apoc527]

Any progress on this rules question yet, anyone? Matt?

 

[apoc527]

Live, thread, live! Anyone else still hoping for the answer? Did it get posted elsewhere when I wasn't looking? Thanks!

 

[Devilmountain]

Bump!

And a question to add dealing with Barrages.

On page 75 is the barrage damage table.
I get the Barrage attack roll, and the %Barrage damage column, however what's with the 5-Dice, 10-Dice, 12-Dice, 20-Dice, 50-Dice columns?

What do those even mean? They are not mentioned in the rules nor the example.

 

[BP]

...I get the Barrage attack roll, and the %Barrage damage column, however what's with the 5-Dice, 10-Dice, 12-Dice, 20-Dice, 50-Dice columns?

What do those even mean? They are not mentioned in the rules nor the example.

See the first page of Expanded Space Combat - pg 73 (I know - nuts isn't it!). Under Barrages second paragraph vaguely describes - 'size of the barrage is measured by the number of dice...beam laser deals 1d6 damage, so a barrage from fifty beam lasers would be a fifty dice barrage.'

Hope that helps...

Seriously, I'd love to see the play test of capital ship combat! (It just doesn't fit the simplifications of the other systems - I'm wondering if it was ever tested as printed...)

 

[Devilmountain]

Right but the example they give is a 100 nuke barrage which is 200d6 damage and the numbers don't seem to mean anything.

At least it seems Im not alone in being lost with this book.

 

[BP]

Right but the example they give is a 100 nuke barrage which is 200d6 damage and the numbers don't seem to mean anything.

At least it seems Im not alone in being lost with this book.

Ah - don't be so harsh - the Expanded Space Combat system - is absolutely clear -

Clear as Mud...

Black Mud...

Dryed and compacted...

Under millions of tons of pressure...

For millions of years!

Yeah - hope that was clear! (Thump - soapbox mode *off*)

As to the example: other than multiplying the 2 at the end of the barrage notation by the 100 successful missiles - which would be the equivalent of 600 pts of normal starship damage (which is barrage damage x 3) - I have no idea how they derived this... or when the x-dice barrage is used and how it can cover all situations with its odd progression (5,10,12, 20,50)

Since the barrage mechanics are intended to avoid 'several thousand dice rolls', I am guessing the 3 comes from half of a potential 6 from a die roll (note it should be 3.5, not 3 - but who's counting).

The idea is sound - though the implementation (esp. that barrage damage table) is questionable - or at least the explanations and examples are.

 

[Devilmountain]

The idea is sound - though the implementation (esp. that barrage damage table) is questionable - or at least the explanations and examples are.

I don't mean to bash Mongoose or Traveller in any way whatsoever. I think the game offers exactly what I was looking for for the space epic story I want to tell. The mechanics for the most part are useful and solid. But yes, in the three books I have so far I can thoroughly say I agree with your statement on Implementation being questionable and most certainly the explanation and examples are really not very helpful.

I get the feeling the system is rock solid, and the guys at Mongoose have played it so much they maybe forgot how to teach the game to others. Hence all the tables and such for apparent quick reference to facts they already understand. The rest of us, however are kind of in the dark.

Again, I am not trying to bash the game or its producers. Just making a comment.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I get the feeling the system is rock solid, and the guys at Mongoose have played it so much they maybe forgot how to teach the game to others. Hence all the tables and such for apparent quick reference to facts they already understand. The rest of us, however are kind of in the dark.

Quite an astute observation, I think. Some of it is clear, some of it hidden in the text, and just enough only implied as to get us scratching our heads. I think the recent books have improved the clarity along with the layout, but some editorial comment as to what the underlying concepts are would be helpful.

As High Guard and Mercenary were the first books published it may be time to revisit them and give them the makeover that Psion and all after got. After all, HG especially is a pretty significant tome, and will be among most refs/players purchase list.

(Maybe while they're at it they could stick some airlocks on the capital ships.... There is a dreadnought with no way of getting off or on other than via a boat dock.)

 

[BP]

Quite!

Don't get me wrong - most professional trade publications suffer various quality issues upon their original publications - and Mongoose has and continues to very generously correct the most blantant gaffs that occured in the initial publication (as ShadowDave recently confirmed!). The first 72 pages of my copy of High Guard are quite worn! Unfortunately, the Expanded Combat system could probably have used a pre-publication review by a fresh party.

Forums are for feedback and community - so hopefully we can all gain from these discussions.

There are other errors of omission in explanation and data, but they haven't truely hampered my designs and close examination of the example ships generally has led to some clarity and resolution.

For instance, after a bit of pondering the examples, I found the price of Torpedo Bays is actually in the table on pg 50 under the label of Heavy Missile Bay (well, the larger one should probably have been named Large Heavy Missile Bay ). Unfortunately, the Torpedo Barbette is stated to cost MCr 4 in the text, while only MCr 3 as a Heavy Missile Barbette.

I could find no ships with Torpedo Barbettes in HG, but fortunately, Traders & Gunboats has a Bombardment Ship with a Torpedo Barbette-10 (the ship is a TL 12) listed as 3 tons (TL+3 would give 60% of normal 5 tons) for MCr 6 (same TL adv. is 200% cost so MCr 3) which one could presume as correct.

Of course, HG lists the Torpedo Barbettes/Bays as TL 9, and pg 53 lists Torpedo weapons as TL 9 so this doesn't work unless the torpedo (Basic/Nuclear) TL of 7 is used (or the ships TL 12 instead of the explicitly stated 10). And this example also seems to have another flaw - it has 20 torpedoes taking up 25 tons which normally would be 50 or as low as 30 (if TL applies there as well - which seems ok).

Torpedoes are an addition from old CT and I like the concept - the implementation probably just needs some teething time. The Capital ship combat is even more dramatic a change - and it looks like it covers a lot that the old system didn't and maybe in a better way... but it could do with some clarification (after a few more reads, I might be able to figure what is going on - but I'm not sure I have the motivation).

(It would also be nice if bearing was removed - at least for torps and missiles - this just makes no sense - starships aren't seagoing vessels even though it is a nice analogy.)